Opinion ID: 1754885
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the motion to modify

Text: This Court will affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. [17] We also view the evidence and permissible inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment. [18] We give even more deference to the judgment of the trial court in a custody matter than in other matters. [19] In accordance with these standards, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying Father's motion to modify custody provisions of a marriage dissolution decree and granting in part and denying in part Mother's motion to modify. The trial court decided properly because no sufficient change in the circumstances of Mother or the children required it to award custody to Father to protect the best interests of the children. [20] It found the children suffered significant medical and psychological problems that were not caused by Mother's parenting and that Mother successfully addressed these problems. Mother secured counseling and drug treatment, enrolled M.U. in a residential treatment facility, and even moved closer to school to help M.U. attend. The evidence showed these efforts improved the psychological and academic well being of the children. The trial court also found Father was more insensitive to the fact that M.U.'s problems were medical and viewed them as predominately disciplinary in nature. It also found he did not adequately respond to Mother's request for help caring for the needs of the children by failing to attend school conferences and pay his share of medical expenses. It also concluded the children's best interests were better served by Mother because of the poor relationship between the children and their stepmother, Father's current wife.