Pennington v. Pennington
Decision Date | 30 July 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 60A01-9202-CV-39,60A01-9202-CV-39 |
Citation | 596 N.E.2d 305 |
Parties | Robert PENNINGTON, Appellant-Respondent, v. Lisa M. PENNINGTON, Appellee-Petitioner. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Vincent S. Taylor, Taylor, Hoff & Bauer, Bloomington, for appellant-respondent.
John J. Fuhs, Petri & Fuhs, Spencer, for appellee-petitioner.
Respondent-appellant Robert C. Pennington (Bob) appeals that portion of his marriage dissolution decree pertaining to a restriction placed upon his visitation rights with his nine-year-old son, Nathan. Bob asserts the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Bob's adult male friend not be present during overnight visitations. We affirm.
Bob and petitioner-appellee Lisa M. Pennington married on May 22, 1983. One child, Nathan, was born of the marriage the following year. The dissolution petition was filed on February 25, 1991.
Bob and Lisa agreed that Lisa would have custody of Nathan and that Bob would enjoy reasonable visitation and pay child support. Bob objects to the following portion of the trial court's order:
[Bob's] overnight visitation is restricted only to the extent that Ashley D. Barrow shall not be present during said visitation, for the reason that the Court specifically finds that said presence would be injurious to the minor child's emotional development.
Record at 33. The trial court imposed this restriction based on Lisa's testimony that it appeared to her that Bob was living almost totally with a male friend, Ashley Barrow, that she was suspicious about the pair's possible homosexuality, and that she did not want Nathan to be around Ashley. In support of her suspicions, Lisa offered photographs of a Valentine's Day card Ashley had given Bob. On the inside was printed: "There's a place within my heart that only you can fill," and The card was signed, "With all my love, Ashley." She admitted, however, she had witnessed no impropriety between Bob and Ashley, and could not say Bob was certainly homosexual. For his part, Bob denied his relationship with Ashley was homosexual. He described the relationship as a close friendship and testified the Valentine's Day card was a joke based on Lisa's insinuations of homosexuality.
In all visitation controversies, courts are required to give foremost consideration to the best interests of the child. IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-24. When reviewing the trial court's resolution of the visitation issue, we reverse only when the trial court manifestly abused its discretion. In re Marriage of Julien (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 651. If the record reveals a rational basis supporting the trial court's determination, no abuse of discretion occurred. Carter v. Dec (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 564. We will not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Id.
It is not puritanical or unreasonable to attempt to shield a child of tender age, like Nathan, from the sexual practices of the visiting parent, whether those practices are homosexual, as Lisa alleges, or heterosexual. Such protection is a sound practice designed to foster the child's emotional well-being, and is widely employed. See generally Wilson v. Wilson (1959), 171 Cal.App.2d 810, 341 P.2d 780 ( ); Gallo v. Gallo (1981), 184 Conn. 36, 440 A.2d 782 ( ); Commander v. Commander (1986), Fla.Dist.Ct.App., 493 So.2d 530 ( ); Lasseigne v. Lasseigne (1983), La.Ct.App., 434 So.2d 1240 ( ); Duplantis v. Monteaux (1982), La.Ct.App., 412 So.2d 215 ( ); Larroquette v. Larroquette (1974), La.Ct.App., 293 So.2d 628 ( ); De Vita v. De Vita (1976), 145 N.J.Super. 120, 366 A.2d 1350 ( ); In re Marriage of Fulwiler (1975), 22 Or.App. 311, 538 P.2d 958 ( ); Drum v. Drum (1979), 263 Pa.Super.Ct. 248, 397 A.2d 1192 ( ); Edwards v. Edwards (1973), Tenn.Ct.App., 501 S.W.2d 283 ( ); and Palmer v. Palmer (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sills v. Irelan
...the visitation might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his emotional development. See Pennington v. Pennington, 596 N.E.2d 305, 307 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (the trial court abused no discretion in ordering that father's visitation take place in the absence of father's c......
-
Huffman v. Huffman
...court may change visitation when such We reverse changes in visitation only for manifest abuse of discretion. Pennington v. Pennington (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 305, 306, trans. denied. We do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility, and we consider only evidence which suppor......
-
Teegarden v. Teegarden, 38A04-9406-CV-212
...counseling. In so doing, the trial court relied upon Marshall v. Reeves (1974), 262 Ind. 107, 311 N.E.2d 807, and Pennington v. Pennington (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 305, trans. denied, for the proposition that "the Court may place conditions in a custody decree if the conditions serve th......
-
Downey v. Muffley
...the child. Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied (1999) (citing IC XX-XX-X-X; Pennington v. Pennington, 596 N.E.2d 305, 306 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied); Summerville v. Summerville, 679 N.E.2d 1344, 1348 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In reviewing a trial court's r......