J.D.Z. v. J.M.Z. (mem. dec.)
51A01-1702-DR-226
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2014; Mother awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter (the Child). Father initially denied visitation but later parties agreed to a rotating two-week/one-week parenting schedule.
- Mother relocated with her boyfriend and the Child to Cromwell (Noble County); Father remained in Loogootee (Martin County).
- Father filed an emergency petition (Aug 2016) seeking sole custody, alleging the Child lived with a man (Juan) facing child-molesting charges and that the Child was seen unsupervised outside near registered sex offenders.
- Evidence at the Jan 4, 2017 hearing: Father’s testimony, private investigator’s surveillance and sex-offender registry search, and testimony from Mother’s boyfriend (Vargas) denying unsupervised outdoor access and denying others lived in the home.
- Trial court found Father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances or that the Child was in danger, denied the custody modification, but expanded Father’s parenting time to alternate two-week periods until the Child begins school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying Father’s petition to modify custody | Father argued Mother’s living situation exposed the Child to sex offenders and a charged molester, amounting to a substantial change endangering the Child | Mother (through testimony) argued the Child was supervised, home conditions were not unfit, and no evidence showed the Child lived with a molester | Trial court decision affirmed: Father failed to prove a substantial change or danger; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Whether Judge was biased, denying Father a fair hearing | Father asserted judge showed bias via comments (e.g., accusing parties of mud-slinging, minimizing charges, commenting on citizenship) | Mother/record: comments were even-handed admonitions, correct statements of law, and citizenship was irrelevant; no objection at trial | No reversible bias: presumption of judicial impartiality not overcome; Father waived many objections by not objecting and showed no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (appellee’s brief absence permits reversal only if appellant shows prima facie error)
- Clark v. Crowe, 778 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (party with burden of proof appeals a negative judgment; standard for judgment contrary to law)
- Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Ind., Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate review when trial court makes no special findings—affirm if any legal theory supports judgment)
- Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 2000) (requirements to show judicial bias; must demonstrate judge’s conduct crossed into partiality and prejudiced the party)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 34 N.E.3d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (judicial comments not reflecting opinions on merits are not evidence of bias; admonitions to parties can reflect even-handedness)