D.C. v. J.A.C.

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DAVID
• Citation: D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 2012)
• Decision Date: 13 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 32S04–1206–DR–349.,32S04–1206–DR–349.
• Parties: D.C., Appellant (Respondent below), v. J.A.C., Appellee (Petitioner below).

977 N.E.2d 951

D.C., Appellant (Respondent below),

v.J.A.C., Appellee (Petitioner below).

No. 32S04–1206–DR–349.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 13, 2012.

G. Jayson Marksberry, Danville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

James A. Smith, Carmel, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 32A04–1106–DR–296

DAVID, Justice.

In this case, a mother sought to relocate out-of-state with her child. The father filed a motion to modify custody and prevent the child's relocation. After an evidentiary hearing, which was conducted over two days with ten witnesses testifying, the trial court ruled in the father's favor. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Today, we reiterate that in family law matters, trial courts are afforded considerable deference. Here, the trial court's judgment was well supported by the findings, and neither the judgment nor the findings were clearly erroneous.

Facts and Procedural History

D.C. (Mother) and J.A.C. (Father) married in 1997. Their son (Child) was born in 2003. In 2008, when Mother and Father divorced, they agreed to share legal custody of Child. The agreement provided Mother with “physical residential custody,” subject to Father's parenting time, which consisted of three overnight visits per week and two weekends per month.

In June 2010, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate. In July 2010, Mother filed a motion for temporary order permitting relocation, and, while that motion was pending, she moved with Child to a location near Nashville, Tennessee. But shortly after, in August 2010, the trial court denied Mother's motion for a temporary order permitting relocation, and Mother complied with a court order for Child's return to Indiana.

Around the same time, Father filed a motion to modify custody and prevent Child's relocation. The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for Child, and the GAL filed a report with the court in December 2010. Several months later, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the issues of relocation and modification of custody. The GAL testified, consistent with his report, that he did not believe that the relocation was in the best interests of Child. The trial court also heard testimony from Mother, Father, Child's maternal and paternal grandmothers, and Child's godfather, among others.

The trial court granted Father's motion to modify custody and prevent Child's relocation. Specifically, the order provided that Mother and Father would retain joint legal custody, Father would become the primary physical custodian, and Mother would be granted parenting time during school breaks and on any other occasions she may be visiting central Indiana.

Mother appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. D.C. v. J.A.C., 966 N.E.2d 158 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). The Court of Appeals also declined to award appellate attorney's fees to Father on Father's request. Id. at 164.

We granted transfer. We summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that Father is not entitled to appellate attorney's fees under these circumstances. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

Standard of Review

Here, the trial court made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order modifying custody and preventing Child's relocation. Accordingly, we “ ‘shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind.2011) (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)).

“ ‘Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.’” Id. (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.1997)). An appellate court neither reweighs the evidence nor reassesses witness credibility, and it views evidence most favorably to the judgment. Id.

Relocation

When a parent files a notice of intent to relocate, the nonrelocating parent may object by moving to modify custody or to prevent the child's relocation. Ind.Code § 31–17–2.2–1(b); 31–17–2.2–5(a). When this objection is made, “[t]he relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason.” I.C. § 31–17–2.2–5(c). If the relocating parent shows good faith and a legitimate reason, “the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.” Id. § 31–17–2.2–5(d).

A court must weigh the following factors in considering a proposed relocation, as set forth in Indiana Code section 31–17–2.2–1(b):

(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.

(2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable parenting time and grandparent visitation arrangements, including consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties.

(4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the relocating individual, including actions by the relocating individual to either promote or thwart a nonrelocating individual's contact with the child.

(5) The reasons provided by the:

(A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and

(B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of the child.

(6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

“Other factors affecting the best interest of the child” include, among other things, the child's age and sex; the parents' wishes; the child's wishes, with the wishes of children fourteen years or older being given more weight; the child's relationship with parents, siblings, and any other person affecting the child's best interests; and the child's adjustment to home, school, and the community. I.C. § 31–17–2–8; see also Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1257 (Ind.2008).¹ When one parent is relocating, it is not necessary for a court to find a substantial change in one of these “other factors” before modifying custody. See Baxendale, 878 N.E.2d at 1257.

In this case, the trial court found that Mother met the initial burden of showing legitimate reason and good faith in relocating.² The trial court then turned to the issue of whether relocation of Child was in Child's best interest. It ultimately found that relocation would not be in Child's best interests, citing the following reasons: the distance involved in the move was significant; Father was very involved in Child's daily activities and education; both maternal and paternal grandparents, along with other extended family, were involved in Child's daily life in Indiana; and relocation would cause “significant deterioration” in Child's relationships with Father and Child's extended family.³

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's best-interest determination was clearly erroneous. D.C., 966 N.E.2d at 160, 164. In doing so, the Court of Appeals focused on several of the trial court's findings.

The Court of Appeals first noted Mother's new management-level employment position in Tennessee and her significant salary increase. Id. at 163. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court gave only “cursory acknowledgment to the benefit that Mother's new employment would provide.” Id. It also suggested that the trial court undervalued the benefit of Mother's new job by finding that Mother's primary motivation in moving was to be with her boyfriend. Id.

The Court of Appeals also noted the burden of travel, stressing the trial court's finding that Father had already purchased a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Id. The Court of Appeals added that the time that Child would spend in transit during any three-day weekend visit is a neutral factor because it would be incurred regardless of which parent was visiting Child. Id.

The Court of Appeals then acknowledged the trial court's finding that relocation would cause the deterioration of Child's relationship with Father and Child's extended family. But the Court of Appeals commented,

While we recognize that Father would not have as much contact with B.C. as he had previously enjoyed before the relocation, “if a relocation that deprives one parent of daily or weekly time with a child could never be in the child's best interests, then the statute would never allow for a long-distance move when the nonrelocating parent has exercised parenting time, as it plainly does in the proper circumstances.”

Id. (quoting T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779, 789 (Ind.Ct.App.2011)).

Father argues that the Court of Appeals failed to afford the trial court the high amount of deference appropriate in cases involving family law. Father specifically argues that the Court of Appeals focused on Mother's “better paying job” instead of giving meaningful consideration to the “numerous” other factors that the trial court found in favor of preventing relocation and modifying custody.

This Court has expressed the importance of appellate deference in family law matters:

Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial court judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted because of their unique, direct interactions with the parties face-to-face, often over an extended period of time. Thus enabled to access credibility and character through both factual testimony and intuitive discernment, our trial judges are in a superior position to ascertain information and apply common sense, particularly in the determination of the best interests of the involved children.

Best, 941 N.E.2d at 502. On the other hand, appellate courts “are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence.” Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304,...