In the Matter of the Paternity of K.B.F., C.C. v. M.F. (mem. dec.)
79A05-1703-JP-636
Ind. Ct. App.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Parents C.C. (Mother) and M.F. (Father) share joint legal custody of child K.B.F., born 2009; they had an agreed shared parenting schedule since 2010.
- Mother moved with the child in June 2016 from the prior residence to Brookston to live with her boyfriend and enrolled the child in a new school without notifying Father.
- Mother discussed relocation with counsel in March 2016 but did not file a Verified Notice of Intent to Relocate until August 4, 2016; Father did not receive a copy until September 13, 2016.
- Father filed a motion to modify custody in February 2016 and, after learning of Mother's move, filed emergency and objection pleadings; a hearing was held on the relocation and custody motions.
- The trial court found Mother failed to timely file notice, concealed the move, and moved in bad faith (sole purpose: live with boyfriend); it denied the relocation and awarded primary physical custody to Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by modifying custody based on Mother’s relocation | Mother: move only increased distance ~13.9 miles and did not disrupt shared schedule; prior order was not unreasonable and court failed to consider all statutory factors | Father: Mother failed to timely file relocation notice, moved without court approval, concealed move, and relocation posed concerns (distance, living situation) supporting custody modification | Court: No abuse of discretion — Mother failed initial burden to show relocation was in good faith; evidence supported findings and custody modification |
| Whether Mother met burden to show relocation was in good faith and for a legitimate reason (shifts burden) | Mother: relocation legitimate; believed counsel would file notice; no intent to conceal | Father: move was for personal relationship only, no financial or employment justification; notice untimely and move concealed | Held: Mother did not meet burden — move was solely to live with boyfriend, notice untimely, and concealment supported finding of bad faith |
| Whether trial court considered required statutory relocation/custody factors | Mother: court did not consider all I.C. §31‑17‑2.2‑1(b) elements | Father: sufficient evidence presented on distance, hardship, pattern of conduct, reasons, and other best-interest factors | Held: Sufficient evidence in record on statutory factors to support modification; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolljung v. Sidell, 891 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review and evidence required on relocation factors)
- D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 2012) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (importance of trial judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
- Paternity of X.A.S. v. S.K., 928 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standards for reviewing findings supporting custody judgments)
- Gold v. Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (noncompliance with relocation notice can indicate insidious intent)
- Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (relocation-based modification need not show substantial change in original best-interest factors)
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (discussing standards for modification when relocation occurs)