13 N.E.3d 478
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- H.M. was born in 2000 during the marriage of Mother and Father and is the youngest of six while the couple later divorced in 2006.
- The dissolution order stated HM is not Father’s biological child but Father is identified on HM’s birth certificate and granted parenting time; the order did not clearly resolve paternity.
- In 2012 Father sought modification of custody; the court granted custody to Father of M.M. but HM remained primarily with Mother and child support was ordered to Mother.
- Mother filed notice of intent to relocate to Texas to move HM; Father and GAL objected and a relocation evidentiary hearing was held in October 2013.
- The trial court denied relocation, and later ordered that if Mother relocated, custody of HM would be modified to Father; the order was subsequently appealed.
- Mother contends HM is not a child of the marriage and that the trial court lacked authority to address HM’s custody; the court ultimately held HM’s status had not been rebutted and affirmed the denial of relocation but reversed the automatic custody modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HM is a child of the marriage to permit objection to relocation | Myers argues HM is not a child of the marriage | Vaidik argues HM is presumed a child of the marriage | Presumption not rebutted; HM is a child of the marriage |
| Whether Mother proved relocation in good faith and for legitimate reasons | Mother contends relocation is for legitimate reasons | Father contends relocation is not in HM’s best interests | Relocation denied; Mother failed to prove good faith and legitimate reasons |
| Whether the automatic custody modification upon relocation was proper | Mother contends no automatic custody change | Court’s order violated custody modification statute | Automatic change conditioned on relocation was erroneous; reversed as to that provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairrow v. Fairrow, 559 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1990) (presumption of paternity and standards to rebut)
- Bojrab v. Bojrab, 810 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2004) (automatic custody modification language violates statute)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 717 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (parental rights and subject-matter jurisdiction in dissolution orders)
- Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. 1997) (withholding approval of stipulations about paternity until established)
- In re Paternity of I.B., 5 N.E.3d 1160 (Ind. 2014) (DNA and burden of proof in paternity determinations (dissent in related context))
- In re T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (relocation considerations and factual distinctions)
- Fridley v. Fridley, 748 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (relocation, job changes, and best interests)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 876 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (relocation factors and proof)
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (best interests and parental rights)
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993) (deference to trial judges in family law)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (deference to credibility determinations in family matters)
- Kietzman v. Kietzman, 992 N.E.2d 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Findings control on sua sponte judgments; standard on review)