Ecker v. Ecker

Citation323 N.E.2d 683,163 Ind.App. 339
Decision Date06 March 1975
Docket NumberNo. 3--873A110,3--873A110
PartiesCarolyn J. ECKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John R. ECKER, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Jerrald A. Crowell, Bowman, Crowell & Swihart, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Glen J. Beams, R. David Boyer, Helmke, Beams, Boyer & Wagner, Fort Wayne, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

This appeal arises from a child custody order entered by the trial court on a petition for change of custody. Petitioner-appellant Carolyn J. Ecker (Carolyn) appeals the award of her minor son to his father, appellee John R. Ecker.

Appellant first contends that the evidence herein fails to show a decisive change of conditions warranting a change in custody of the child. The evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the record of this cause which are most favorable to the appellee-father disclose, in part, the following facts:

Subsequent to her divorce, Carolyn began an illicit relationship with a certain man. This individual frequently spends the night with Carolyn, and they have engaged in sexual relations while her son, and a daughter from a previous marriage, are in the same apartment. Carolyn has left her children and others for whom she was babysitting (all under nine years of age) unsupervised while she searched for her boyfriend.

On one occasion she took her son on such a search, and when she found her paramour, exited her car while it was still moving, leaving her son inside. The boy attempted to follow her but was thrown to the ground by the door of the rolling car. The car then struck a tree, and another auto narrowly missed the child. On another occasion, she awakened her children at one o'clock A.M., on a sub-zero, snowy night and took them with her to search for her male friend.

Carolyn had a baby out of wedlock by this man following her divorce. She gave this child up for adoption. Carolyn also had another affair with a married man subsequent to her divorce. Furthermore, she has attempted or threatened suicide on several occasions.

Appellee review of child custody determinations is limited to an ascertainment of whether the trial court has abused its discretion. See: Marshall v. Reeves (1974), Ind., 311 N.E.2d 807, wherein the bases for this rule are fully explained.

The evidence outlined hereinabove and other facts in the record before us support the decision of the trial court. Appellant has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Duckworth v. Duckworth (1932), 203 Ind. 276, 179 N.E. 773; Shaw v. Shaw (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 536.

The only other issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • D. H. v. J. H.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 30, 1981
    ...have the custody of her child." See also: Lucas v. Lucas, (1949) 119 Ind.App. 360, 86 N.E.2d 300, trans. den. Cf.: Ecker v. Ecker, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 339, 323 N.E.2d 683, (affirming the awarding of custody to the father where in addition to the mother's illicit sexual relationship with a m......
  • Weinstock v. Ott
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 9, 1983
    ...facts which are not in evidence and which cannot be reasonably inferred therefrom has no probative value. Ecker v. Ecker (1975), 163 Ind.App. 339, 341, 323 N.E.2d 683, 684. However, Ott posits that the failure to prove some of the facts assumed in the hypothetical question affects only the ......
  • Brandon v. State, 479S103
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1979
    ...well settled that a hypothetical question which is based upon a fact not in evidence cannot be proof of any issue. Ecker v. Ecker, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 339, 323 N.E.2d 683; Harrison v. Daniels, (1970) 147 Ind.App. 666, 263 N.E.2d 288. Therefore we find no abuse of discretion in the trial cou......
  • Pike County Highway Dept. v. Fowler
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 1, 1979
    ...is "defective, insufficient and of no probative value" because it is based on facts not in the record, citing Ecker v. Ecker, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 339, 323 N.E.2d 683; Town of Newburgh v. Jones, (1945) 115 Ind.App. 320, 58 N.E.2d 938. Moreover, the Highway Department argues that if such a th......

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