Campbell v. Campbell, No. 1-1178-A-332

Docket NºNo. 1-1178-A-332
Citation182 Ind.App. 661, 396 N.E.2d 142
Case DateNovember 05, 1979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 142

396 N.E.2d 142
182 Ind.App. 661
Linda D. CAMPBELL, Appellant (Respondent Below),
v.
Michael CAMPBELL, Appellee (Petitioner Below).
No. 1-1178-A-332.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
Nov. 5, 1979.

Curtis M. Jacobs, Cooper, Cox, Jacobs & Kemper, Madison, for appellant.

Neil R. Comer, Comer & Schuerman, Osgood, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

After complying with our holding in Campbell v. Campbell, (1979) Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 607, and no further issue being[182 Ind.App. 662] presented with respect thereto, we now proceed to the merits of this case.

Respondent-appellant Linda D. Campbell (Linda) appeals from the trial court's modification of a custody decree which, Inter alia, awarded custody of two of three minor children to petitioner-appellee Michael Campbell (Michael).

We affirm.

The marital union of the parties to this appeal was dissolved on October 11, 1977, with custody of three minor children granted to Linda. The instant action was initiated by Michael on August 17, 1978, by way of a petition to modify custody. After a hearing on September 25, 1978, the trial court modified its prior decree and placed the two youngest children in the custody of Michael. The sole issue on appeal 1 is whether the modification decree constituted an abuse of discretion.

Page 143

Both prior to and after the adoption of the Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ind.Code 31-1-11.5-1, Et seq.), the function of an appellate tribunal in an appeal from a custody modification decree has been to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Marshall v. Reeves, (1974) 262 Ind. 107, 311 N.E.2d 807 (prior law); Franklin v. Franklin, (1976) Ind.App., 349 N.E.2d 210. See also In re Marriage of Lopp, (1977) Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 492. 2 Therefore, we will not reverse the lower court's decision unless it is " 'clearly Against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.' " Marshall, supra, 262 Ind. at 107, 311 N.E.2d at 812 (original emphasis; citations omitted).

[182 Ind.App. 663] The record reveals the following facts pertinent to this appeal. Rhonda Peters was the babysitter for the three children during the day while Linda was at work. She testified that "many a morning" the youngest child arrived in diapers that were "sopping wet" since they had not been changed from the previous evening, and would occasionally have cookies caked in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Joe v. Lebow, No. 49A02-9504-JV-189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 18, 1996
    ...the court." Kuiper, supra, 634 N.E.2d at 558; see also Poret, supra, 434 N.E.2d at 887 (citing Campbell v. Campbell (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142, We note at the outset that Mother has not challenged the trial court's conclusion that it would be in N.D.L.'s best interests for Father to ha......
  • Walker v. Chatfield, No. 49A04-8812-CV-00416
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 24, 1990
    ...before the trial court or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Campbell v. Campbell (1979), 182 Ind.App. 661, 396 N.E.2d Our function on appeal is to examine the decision of the trial court and determine whether the record discloses evidence or reasonable in......
  • Snider v. Gaddis, No. 1-780A167
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 15, 1980
    ...before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Campbell v. Campbell, (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142. Given the trial court's broad discretion in the matter, specific decisions must turn on the facts of a particular case. The trial judge should b......
  • Whitman v. Whitman, No. 2-378A95
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 17, 1980
    ...and to challenge this determination Wife must demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Campbell v. Campbell, (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142, Although the evidence is conflicting, that favorable to the trial court's decision supports a finding of a substantial change of circumstan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Joe v. Lebow, No. 49A02-9504-JV-189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 18, 1996
    ...the court." Kuiper, supra, 634 N.E.2d at 558; see also Poret, supra, 434 N.E.2d at 887 (citing Campbell v. Campbell (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142, We note at the outset that Mother has not challenged the trial court's conclusion that it would be in N.D.L.'s best interests for Father to ha......
  • Walker v. Chatfield, No. 49A04-8812-CV-00416
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 24, 1990
    ...before the trial court or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Campbell v. Campbell (1979), 182 Ind.App. 661, 396 N.E.2d Our function on appeal is to examine the decision of the trial court and determine whether the record discloses evidence or reasonable in......
  • Snider v. Gaddis, No. 1-780A167
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 15, 1980
    ...before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Campbell v. Campbell, (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142. Given the trial court's broad discretion in the matter, specific decisions must turn on the facts of a particular case. The trial judge should b......
  • Whitman v. Whitman, No. 2-378A95
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 17, 1980
    ...and to challenge this determination Wife must demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Campbell v. Campbell, (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 142, Although the evidence is conflicting, that favorable to the trial court's decision supports a finding of a substantial change of circumstan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT