Marriage of Myers, In re
Decision Date | 25 April 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3-578,3-578 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Bruce B. Myers, Appellant-Petitioner, and Laura J. MYERS, Appellee-Respondent. A 134. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steven L. Artusi, Robert F. Gonderman, Gonderman Law Offices, South Bend, for appellant-petitioner.
Leonard V. Campanale, Mishawaka, for appellee-respondent.
After hearing evidence, the trial court issued a decree dissolving the marriage of Bruce Myers and Laura Myers and awarding custody of their son, Keith Allen Myers, to Laura Myers. Bruce Myers appeals the grant of custody. 1 We hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it acted under a presumption that the mother should have custody of a child upon dissolution of marriage.
At the end of 1974, Bruce and Laura Myers agreed their marriage was irretrievably broken. They agreed that Bruce would file a petition seeking dissolution of their marriage and that he would retain custody of Keith, born April 15, 1973. Bruce filed the petition on December 31, 1974. Hearings were held on five occasions extending over nineteen and one-half months. On November 2, 1977, each side rested. On December 13, 1977, the court entered judgment awarding custody of Keith to Laura.
Bruce filed a motion to correct errors which was denied. Attached to the motion was the sworn affidavit of Thomas C. Sopko, the attorney who represented Bruce at the hearings relating to the dissolution proceeding. Sopko indicated (referring to an attached exhibit) that on November 4, 1977, the court notified the attorneys of its intended disposition of the case, including its decision to award custody of Keith to Laura. On November 7, the next regularly scheduled court date, Sopko conferred with the trial judge, the Honorable William Hosinski. In his affidavit, Sopko averred:
Sopko's affidavit was attached to Bruce's motion to correct errors pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(D), which provides as follows:
Laura's attorney, who was present at one of the conversations between Sopko and the trial judge, failed to file any opposing affidavits.
Sopko's affidavit became part of the record of the proceedings under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 7.2(A)(1). The trial judge certified the transcript and failed to file opposing affidavits, under AP. 7.2(A)(3)(c).
Under the rules of our courts, if Sopko's affidavit contained erroneous statements, either Laura or the trial judge could have filed opposing affidavits. Since no opposing affidavits were filed, this court must accept as true the facts averred in Sopko's affidavit filed on behalf of Bruce. Roberts v. Watson (1977), Ind.App., 359 N.E.2d 615; Scharbrough v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 316, 232 N.E.2d 592. See also Jackson v. State (1978), Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 1242.
Accepting such facts as true, we must determine whether the trial judge's remarks constitute reversible error in regard to the determination of custody.
Indiana statutory law provides as follows IC 1971, 31-1-11.5-21(a) (Burns Code Ed., Supp.1977).
The trial judge was bound to render his custody decision in accordance with this provision. However, Judge Hosinski's remarks to Sopko indicated he was unable or unwilling to do so he personally presumed that in most instances the mother is the more fit and proper custodial parent, and that the mother should be given "the benefit of the doubt."
The trial judge's remarks at the close of the evidence provide further support for Bruce's contention that the judge acted with a presumption in favor of the mother. The judge stated:
The pivotal question the trial judge faced in this case was Not the mental capacity of Laura coupled with who would be best for the child. The question was simply what custodial determination would serve the best interests of Keith, with no presumption favoring either parent. Schwartz v. Schwartz (1976), Ind.App., 351 N.E.2d 900; Buchanan v. Buchanan (1971), 256 Ind. 119, 267 N.E.2d 155.
In light of his own remarks, the trial judge seems to have reasoned as follows: In the case before him, he determined, after resolving his own concern as to Laura's competence, that either parent was competent to take care of Keith. However, there remained a question regarding Laura's mental capacity to discharge her maternal duties. Rather than resolving that question in favor of Bruce's receiving custody of Keith, the judge gave Laura the "benefit of the doubt" and awarded her custody of the child. Apparently the judge would have given Bruce custody of Keith only if he had found Laura mentally incapable of caring for Keith.
A judge who follows such a process abuses the discretion granted him by statute. To be sure, a judge often faces a difficult choice in determining the custodial situation which would serve the best interests of the child. Where one parent is unfit or unable to care for the child, the choice is clear. However, when either parent is competent to care for his or her child, the judge must choose the better of two alternatives. In doing so, he is charged statutorily with looking only to the best interests of the child. He may not indulge in any presumption favoring either parent. He may not give either parent "the benefit of the doubt."
In making a custody determination the court is charged with considering:
"all relevant factors including:
(1) the age and sex of the child;
(2) the wishes of the child's parent or parents;
(3) the wishes of the child;
(4) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D. H. v. J. H.
... ... STATEMENT OF THE CASE ... D. H. (wife) appeals from that portion of the decree of dissolution of marriage entered by the trial court which awarded the care and custody of the three minor children of the parties to J. H. (husband). We affirm ... Buchanan v. Buchanan, supra. Wife cites In re Marriage of Myers, (1979) Ind.App., 387 N.E.2d 1360, as authority for the proposition that an appellate court can weigh the evidence in reviewing a custody award. We ... ...
- Skolnick v. State, PS
-
White v. White
... ... SULLIVAN, Judge ... Sandy L. White (Sandy) appeals the trial court's decree dissolving her marriage to Daniel G. White (Daniel) and awarding custody of the couple's two minor children to Daniel ... We affirm ... E.g., In re Marriage of Myers (1979) 3d Dist., 180 Ind.App. 284, 387 N.E.2d 1360, 1364. This court generally will not reverse a custody determination absent a manifest abuse of ... ...
-
Sebastian v. Sebastian
... ... Various disputes arose during the marriage. Gary wanted Kim to spend more time with Kara, and wished that Kim would leave the air force in order to stay at home with Kara. Gary was not happy ... See Eyler v. Eyler (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 1071; In Re Marriage of Myers (1979), 180 Ind.App. 284, 387 N.E.2d 1360 ... ISSUE TWO--Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering Gary to pay $25 per ... ...