Indiana Relocation Appeal

[hoosier_dad]

The truth is the justices ruled the way they did because of their own personal biases. They were certainly free to rule differently. All they neded to do was justify it in their minds.

They didn't feel the need.

I actually looked up the bios of the 3 judges that ruled on that case this morning and they are all three men, have long term marriages, no divorce/custody history for any of them. Although 2 of them are Dads, the wording of the opinion shows clear bias.

Personally this appears to be an obvious attempt to rebel against new legislation. The relocation statute was rewritten just a few years ago (2006 or 2007) to emphasize the importance of the relationship with both parents and yes, to make it harder for the custodial parent to move. The prior language allowed the custodial parent to move up to 100 miles away with no notice and no ability to defend against it for the noncustodial parent. Yet these 3 judges refused to factor in a key criteria required by law to determine if a relocation should be approved because it would make it more difficult for the CP to move.

[Fatheroffour]

You believe the ruling was just and in accordance with 'the law' because of your personal bias, plain and simple.

Then don't you believe it was unjust because of your own bias? Rarely are custody cases black and white. They are almost always subjective.

Of course. I'm heavily dad biased as well as biased towards allowing involved parents to stay involved. The court ruled against those principles which is why I think they are tools and will vigorously argue against them.

BTW, I understand why you are arguing from your own bias. I've advocated for your move in the face of your own hesitancy. The hesitancy is understandable with the stakes being what they are and you're looking at this case as how the appeals court "Got It Right" is understandable from your POV. It's wrong, but understandable.

Their ruling still sucks, is unjust and deprived the boy of his involved father because his mom was excited about her new dick.

[Fatheroffour]

I see that we agree on something else.

You truly never know what some idiotic GAL and judge will do

They will do what they want and use the law to legitimize their decision.

I always advocate for dads to read the statutes and case law because it preps them for how to slant and present their case but there are no guarantees.

[hoosier_dad]

Update

On 8/1/2012 the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that this case warranted oral arguments. Oral arguments occurred this morning at 9am and are posted online.

I found it very interesting since I've gone through a round of court on an Indiana relocation case based on the same statutes. IMO it appeared the justices dived in right away and pointed out that the Appeals Court didn't have substantial foundation to find the Trial Court's decision clearly erroneous. Based on the oral arguments I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't reverse the Appeal's Court decision and reinstate the original Trial Court's ruling.

If you're interested in listening the case beings at 4:44 and it bombs the connection when I try to jump to that point. Could just be my laptop but if you have trouble just let it run to that point. Also the appellee's attorney freezes from 22:15 - 22:46 and from 40:16 - 41:30 but does start playing again.

http://media.ihets.org/vod/supremecourt/wmv/09062012_0900am.wmv

One of the arguments of Mom's attorney that really pi*ssed me off was that since Dad was very civil with Mom and played safety net picking up her slack in parenting time, that it therefore justified her moving away since they'd get along well enough to work out his parenting time. WTH, being civil and accommodating within the same city is completely different than moving hours away.

And the big question mark for me when looking at the Trial Court ruling was what did the GAL recommend. It came out in the oral argument that the GAL recommendation favored keeping the child in place. So now you've got the judge's ruling backed up by a GAL so there was even less of a reason for the Appeals Court to overrule it.

And I'm glad he pointed out that the Appeals Court assumed that Mom was the primary parent because she was Mom, but in actuality the court record showed Dad had more than 50% of the parenting time.

Overall I was pleasantly surprised by our Supreme Court and their clear understanding of the value of both parents relationship, whether male or female, custodial or noncustodial. Hopefully a quick unanimous verdict overruling the Appeals Court will confirm my assumption.

[Fatheroffour]

This is good news and thanks for keeping an eye on it and letting us know. Hopefully they'll get it right this time.

[hoosier_dad]

Update - The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's original decision, overruling the idiotic Appeals Court ruling.


Conclusion
Trial courts are afforded a great deal of deference in family law matters, including relocation and custody disputes. The trial court, in this case, made sufficient and supportable findings to sustain its decision to prevent relocation and modify custody. Applying the highly deferential standard of review, we affirm the trial court.



http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11131202shd.pdf

[Trevor]

Thanks hoos, good news for the Dad in this case. He doesn't know it but there are a bunch of guys wanting to tell him winner winner turkey dinner.