Kyle Andrews v. Gilliam Moorman (mem. dec)
27A02-1610-JP-2311
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Child T.A. (b. 2011); parents initially had joint legal and physical custody by agreement in 2013 but remained acrimonious and poor co-parents.
- Father receives SSDI, has longstanding anxiety history and counseling; Mother works as a pediatric dental assistant, has had recent physical health issues and began PRN anti-anxiety medication in 2016.
- Dispute over T.A.’s schooling: Mother favored increased preschool; Father limited attendance to two half-days/week (T.A. was the only child at Westminster with that limited schedule). Teacher recommended T.A. not ready for kindergarten.
- Father filed to modify custody (seeking sole legal and primary physical custody); GAL recommended awarding custody to Father, but the trial court held a two-day hearing with competing witnesses.
- Mid-hearing the judge disclosed past, remote legal work for a business associated with Mother’s step‑parents; Father did not move to recuse. Trial court awarded Mother sole legal and primary physical custody, set parenting time per guidelines (crediting Father 96–100 overnights), and ordered parties to pursue changing T.A.’s SSA representative payee from Father to Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Judge’s prior representation of business connected to Mother’s family created appearance of impropriety; judge should’ve recused sua sponte | Judge’s disclosure on record sufficed; no evidence of actual prejudice; counsel consented to judge staying on | No error: disclosure complied with Code; Father waived by not moving to recuse and showed no prejudice |
| Modification of custody (legal & physical) | Trial court lacked sufficient findings and the change punished Father for conflict; joint custody should remain | Change was warranted because communication/co‑parenting broke down; best interests favored Mother (stability, education position, sibling bond) | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports modification to Mother; appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility assessments |
| Parenting time / overnight credit | Father argued he was entitled to a midweek overnight (increasing overnight credit) | Father never requested midweek overnight at hearing; parenting time awarded followed standard guidelines | No abuse of discretion: Father didn’t request deviation at trial; court properly applied Parenting Time Guidelines and awarded 96–100 overnight credit |
| SSA representative payee order | Trial court lacked authority; federal law assigns SSA exclusive control over payee designation | Order merely required parties to cooperate and seek change; SSA retains final authority | No error: court ordered parties to take steps to change payee (not to compel SSA); SSA discretion preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parental inability to cooperate undermines joint custody)
- Aylward v. Aylward, 592 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (joint custody inappropriate where parents make childrearing a battleground)
- Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing joint legal custody issues from physical custody modifications)
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016) (appellate deference to trial court in family-law fact findings and credibility assessments)
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence; detailed findings not required absent request)
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 59 N.E.3d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (review standards for custody modification; reversal requires evidence that positively demands a different conclusion)