Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed a trial court’s decision granting the father’s motion to modify custody and prevent the mother from relocating with the child to Tennessee. Applying the deferential clear-error standard applicable to family-law findings, the court held that the trial court’s findings were supported by the evidence and affirmed the judgment, while summarily affirming the denial of appellate attorney’s fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court clearly erred in determining that the child's relocation to Tennessee was not in the child's best interests.
- Whether the trial court properly modified custody by awarding Father primary physical custody while retaining joint legal custody.
- Whether Father was entitled to appellate attorney's fees.
Holdings
- The trial court's determination that relocation to Tennessee was not in the child's best interests was supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
- In family-law custody and relocation matters, appellate courts must give considerable deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations and may reverse only when the findings or judgment are clearly erroneous.
- Father was not entitled to appellate attorney's fees under the circumstances presented.
Key quotations
“The standard of review is not de novo. As stated above, under these circumstances, appellate courts employ a clear-error standard.” (957)
“Trial courts are afforded a great deal of deference in family law matters, including relocation and custody disputes.” (958)
“The trial court, in this case, made sufficient and supportable findings to sustain its decision to prevent relocation and modify custody.” (958)
Factual background
Mother and Father divorced in 2008 and agreed to share legal custody of their son, born in 2003, with Mother having physical residential custody and Father exercising substantial parenting time. In 2010, Mother gave notice of an intended move to Tennessee, temporarily moved there with the child, and then returned the child to Indiana after the trial court ordered his return. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Mother had a legitimate reason and acted in good faith, but concluded that relocation was not in the child's best interests because of the distance and the likely deterioration of the child's relationships with Father and extended family in Indiana.
Procedural history
The parties shared legal custody after their 2008 divorce, with Mother having physical residential custody. After Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate and moved temporarily to Tennessee, Father sought to prevent relocation and modify custody. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded Father primary physical custody while maintaining joint legal custody and prevented the relocation. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and summarily affirmed the denial of Father's request for appellate attorney's fees.