Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 350
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Marital dissolution between Kevin and Jennifer Stone; child M.S. born 2000; mediation produced a settlement including joint custody and property provisions; trial court adopted settlement preliminarily but not custody terms; Mother sought protection orders after Christmas 2011 incident involving Father; Father underwent mental health evaluation; trial court awarded Mother primary physical and sole legal custody, with supervised visitation for Father and ordered him to pay some fees; on appeal, court remanded for custody merits and addressed fee provision and continuances.
- Settlement included that each party would pay own attorney fees after December 22, 2011; Father’s conduct and mental health issues influenced custody ruling; a subsequent 2013 mediated agreement granted unsupervised visitation per Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.
- Mental health evaluation of Father occurred, report deemed him relatively stable; trial court did not rely on evaluation to support custody decision; new trial judge to review custody on original standard.
- MCFCP evaluated Father; report stated potential for satisfactory relationship with daughter; no treatment recommended.
- Final decree August 15, 2012 approved property provisions but not custody provisions; March 28, 2013 mediated agreement addressed visitation; appeal followed challenging the custody ruling, continuances, and attorney-fee allocation.
- Course of proceedings led to remand for new custody hearing while preserving property division and pre-existing support/fee provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have enforced the mediated custody agreement | Stone argues the agreement should be adopted as to custody. | Stone contends the court can reject custody terms if not in child's best interests; Mother opposed adoption of custody terms. | Not error to refuse adoption without best-interests evidence; remand for custody merits. |
| Whether the denial of continuances was an abuse of discretion | Stone asserts delays justified continuances to obtain counsel and a mental-health evaluation. | Mother argues continuances were not warranted. | Abuse as to third continuance; remand for new custody hearing on original standard. |
| Whether the attorney-fee award complied with the settlement | Stone says fees after Dec. 22, 2011 should be borne by each party per the settlement. | Mother argues trial court may award fees under statutory authority. | Reversed; property division fees enforceable but not the $5,000 fee order; remand for proper accounting per settlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keen v. Keen, 629 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (custody agreements require best-interests review; not automatic bind)
- Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1996) (best-interests standard governs custody; avoid coercion/inequity in custody provisions)
- In re Paternity of K.J.L., 725 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (parental stipulations on custody not automatically binding; court must approve for child’s best interests)
- Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court must examine custody agreement for best interests; cannot rubber-stamp)
- Reno v. Haler, 734 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (mediated custody agreements receive deference but still must reflect child’s best interests)