One of the most difficult aspects of family law is when one parent wants to relocate their child, depriving the other parent of parenting time. In these cases, the court has to strike a balance between the rights of the parent to relocate and the need to ensure the child maintains a relationship with the other parent. In Indiana, the relocation statute has established a framework for determining cases involving relocation. However, the outcome of these cases often depends on the particular facts of the case. 

Background of the case

The case was a result of a custody dispute involving unmarried parents of a minor child. Following a separation, the parents had a parenting schedule in Indiana. Both had actively involved themselves in the parenting of their child. The mother, however, decided to relocate out of the state after she obtained a job in Utah. Following Indiana’s requirements, she filed a notice of intent to relocate while asking the court for permission to move with the child.

The non-relocating party opposed the relocation since it would impact his relationship with the child. A Guardian ad Litem was appointed to hear the case. Eventually, they made a recommendation to allow the relocation since the mother was the primary caretaker of the child, and the child would have support in Utah.

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the mother’s request to relocate. It ruled that the relocation was not in the child’s best interests. Additionally, the trial court gave the non-relocating parent primary physical custody of the child because the mother was no longer residing in Indiana.

The appeal

In its review of the trial court’s decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals followed the standard of review applied in most appeals: did the trial court abuse its discretion when rendering a decision? First, the appellate court analyzed the Indiana relocation statute. According to the statute, the party seeking to relocate must prove that the relocation was made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. Once the relocating party meets its burden of proof, the non-relocating party must prove that the relocation was not in the best interests of the child.

In this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in denying the mother’s relocation request. First, the distance of the relocation was substantial. A substantial distance translates to an increased cost of travel. Moreover, the relocation would limit the ability of the non-relocating party to maintain a relationship with the child. Therefore, the appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the relocation was not in the best interests of the child.

Nevertheless, the Indiana Court of Appeals found fault with part of the trial court’s decision. The trial court made its decision on custody in part because of its belief that the mother was not a resident of the state. This belief was an error. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the custody decision of the trial court that gave full custody to the father.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Child Custody Lawyer Today

Chris Arrington represents the interests of parents who are looking to relocate with a minor child. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.