Indiana Appellate Decision 01/29/14

[single317dad]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

Those in Indiana planning to relocate might want to read this over.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01291401cjb.pdf

We concluded that Mother’s proposed relocation of the Child to Ann Arbor was in good faith and for legitimate reasons. However, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that relocation was not in the Child’s best interest. As a result, the trial court’s denial of Mother’s request to relocate the Child to Ann Arbor is not clearly erroneous.

Also, this one from 01/27:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01271406pdm.pdf

Yet, the trial court concluded that primary physical custody would be automatically modified if Mother failed to establish her residence in Indiana by March 31, 2013. Consequently, the trial court’s order violates Indiana Code section 31-14-13-6, and we reverse the trial court’s order as to this prospective modification of custody.

 

[CJane]

I love reading decisions. "We decline the invitation to do so". So snarky. So polite.

And, I had to go check out "Kurt the Conman". Can't believe she's marrying this guy. Stoopid. She'll be HERE in a year, trying to figure out how to untangle her life from his criminal activity.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

Those in Indiana planning to relocate might want to read this over.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01291401cjb.pdf



Also, this one from 01/27:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01271406pdm.pdf

I am unsurprised by either case. In the first instance the trial court made a proper determination and it was appropriate that the appellate court backed them up.

In the second case the trial court made a bad order and the appellate court spanked them...again, totally appropriate.

 

[Bloopy]

I love it.

Fine, Mom. Your desire to relocate to Ann Arbor to be with retired Kurt the Con Man was in good faith.

Still not in Kiddo's best interest. So there!