Paternity of C.S.: M.R. v. R.S.
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 110
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- M.R. and R.S. had a dating relationship (2004–2008) with C.S. born February 13, 2006.
- Mother relocated to Fort Knox, Kentucky, while Father remained in Bloomington, Indiana; C.S. has split time between homes since 2009.
- In 2009, the parties entered a joint legal custody and equal physical custody arrangement.
- Mother sought relocation to Kentucky; Father sought primary physical custody; court initially continued prior arrangement in 2011.
- In July 2011 Father filed to modify custody citing kindergarten start and distance; court granted primary physical custody to Father after a hearing and findings, influenced by a custody evaluation by Dr. Barnhill.
- Dr. Barnhill prepared an updated custody evaluation (June 27, 2011) recommending primary physical custody for Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial change in circumstances warranted modification | Mother argues no substantial change from school eligibility. | Father argues age and readiness for kindergarten and stability support modification. | Yes; substantial change supported by readiness for kindergarten and child’s needs. |
| Whether IC 31-17-2-21.3 limits consideration of active-duty relocation | Mother contends active-duty relocation cannot be considered. | Father argues statute shields soldiers only when deployment impairs custody. | No reversible error; court properly considered relocation factors and other evidence. |
| Whether the updated custody evaluation was properly considered | Mother claims Barnhill update added no value. | Father maintains evaluation was proper to inform best interests. | Waived and, in any case, court could rely on updated evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (deference to trial court in custody determinations; abuse of discretion standard)
- Werner v. Werner, 946 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (two-tier review; consider findings and whether they support the order)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (parental wishes and child’s best interests in custody modification)
- Tompa v. Tompa, 867 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (two-tier standard of review for findings and orders when Rule 52(A) applies)
- Carr v. Pearman, 860 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (waiver cannot be raised for first time on appeal)