Jill I. Lane v. Michael P. Lane (mem. dec.), 92A03-1702-DR-399

Background

Jill Lane (Mother) and Michael Lane (Father) share one child, G.M.R.L. (born 2010); dissolution decree awarded joint legal custody with Mother as primary custodial parent.
Mother filed notice (July 2016) to relocate with the child from Columbia City, Indiana to Winsted, Connecticut to join her fiancé and take a new realty position; Father objected and sought to prevent relocation.
Trial court entered a temporary restraining order and held an evidentiary hearing; parties submitted proposed findings and the court issued written findings and conclusions (Jan. 27, 2017).
Court found Mother’s reasons (relationship and potential employment/financial improvement) not sufficiently tied to the child’s best interests and noted Mother would not move without the child; Father would face hardship exercising parenting time given ~700+ mile/11-hour distance.
The court emphasized the child’s special needs (severe receptive/expressive language delay and autism spectrum disorder), his established routine, current school placement, and regular contact with Father and extended Indiana family as significant to best interests.
Trial court denied the relocation, retained joint legal custody, left Father’s parenting time unchanged, and declined to award attorney fees; Mother appealed arguing the findings and denial were clearly erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother met burden to show relocation was made in good faith and for a legitimate reason	Mother argued move was for legitimate reasons: marriage to fiancé, better living space, and improved employment/commission prospects in Connecticut	Father argued relocation would sever regular contact, impose hardship and expense, and harm child’s routine and access to services in Indiana	Court assumed arguendo Mother might have legitimate reasons but held relocation not in child’s best interest and denied relocation
Whether trial court’s findings were supported by evidence or clearly erroneous	Mother contended findings/conclusions were unsupported and improperly weighed evidence	Father relied on child’s special needs, current services, school stability, and proximity to extended family	Court found sufficient evidence supported findings and declined to reweigh credibility; affirmed denial
Whether parenting-time plan proposed preserved relationship feasibly	Mother proposed limited, scheduled blocks of parenting time (summer weeks, holiday/spring breaks, quarterly weekend) and shared travel costs	Father argued proposed plan was insufficient, costly, and would result in long physical separation undermining relationship	Court found proposed plan inadequate to preserve relationship given distance and cost; Skype not adequate substitute
Consideration of statutory best-interest factors and deference to trial court	Mother urged alternative emphasis on her reasons and potential benefits	Father emphasized statutory factors (distance, hardship, feasibility, child’s adjustment, health, family ties) and trial court’s discretion	Court applied statutory factors, gave deference to trial judge’s credibility assessments, and affirmed decision

Key Cases Cited

Breeden v. Breeden, 678 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (standards for review when trial court issues findings and conclusions)
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (preference for finality in custody matters and deference to trial courts)
T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (relocation burden-shifting framework and factors to consider)
M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (relocation burden explanation)
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (trial judges’ credibility advantage in family law)
In re Paternity of Ba.S., 911 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (deference to trial judges in family law)
H.H. v. A.A., 3 N.E.3d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming deference to trial court in custody determinations)