Court Opinion

ID: 9526541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:19:40.76106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:26.591921
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion states that "(Phe fact that Mother cecu-pied six different residences within a one year time period supports the conclusion that a substantial change occurred in the custodial arrangement." The majority holds that there was sufficient evidence to show a substantial change in Mother's ability to provide stability and shelter for her children. This may be evidence that the best interests of the child would be served by a stable environment, however, it would also be in the best interests of the child if the Father had paid his support in a timely manner. Therefore we must turn to the second part of the custody modification statute, LC. 31-1-11.5-22(d) which directs the court to consider all relevant factors including the following:
(1) the age and sex of the child;
(2) the wishes of the child's parent or parents;
(8) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(5) the child's adjustment to his home, school, and community; and
(6) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
L.C. 81-1-11.5-22(d) states that the court may modify a child custody order only when it is in the best interests of the child and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors provided in I.C. 81-1-11.5-Z2l(a). A "substantial change in the custodial arrangement" is not one of the factors provided by statute. It may be true that a more stable living arrangement may be in the best interests of the child but the statute is in the conjunctive and there has been no showing of any of the six (6) factors included in I.C. 31-1-11.5-2l(a). I would reverse the trial court's determination to modify custody as being unsupported by the evidence.
ORDER
This Court having heretofore handed down its opinion in this appeal marked "Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication"; and
Comes now the Honorable R. Perry Ship-man, Judge, Benton Cireuit Court and requests this Court to publish said decision for the reason that the opinion deals with the 1994 General Assembly's change in the standard for Modification of Custody Statute, 1.C. 31-1-11.5-22(d)(@);
And this Court, having reviewed its opinion in this case, and being duly advised, now finds that the request of Judge Shipman should be granted and that this Court's opinion in this appeal heretofore handed down as a Memorandum Decision should now be ordered published.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:
1. This Court's opinion heretofore handed down in this cause on April 25, 1996 marked "Memorandum Decision" is now ordered published.
/s/ John T. Sharpnack Chief Judge