Court Opinion

ID: 9917118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 17:04:03.844682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:00.529656
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         Jan 11 2024, 8:35 am

                                                                              CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                                                                              and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christina M. Phillips                                      Timothy P. Broden
Law Office of Christina M. Phillips,                       Lafayette, Indiana
P.C.
Delphi, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re: The Paternity of V.D.;                              January 11, 2024
Brittney Kozenko (Mother),                                 Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-JP-688
Appellant-Petitioner,
                                                           Appeal from the Carroll Circuit
        v.                                                 Court
                                                           The Honorable Benjamin A.
Isaac Diaz (Father),                                       Diener, Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Respondent.
                                                           08C01-2204-JP-4

                                      Opinion by Judge Pyle

                              Judges Vaidik and Mathias concur.

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                               Page 1 of 26
      Statement of the Case
[1]   Brittney Kozenko (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order that denied her

      request to relocate to Utah with her then twenty-three (23) month-old daughter

      V.D. (“Child”) and awarded Isaac Diaz (“Father”) primary physical custody of

      Child. Mother argues that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the

      trial court’s determination that relocation was not in Child’s best interests; and

      (2) the trial court clearly erred when it awarded Father primary physical

      custody of Child. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the

      trial court’s determination that relocation was not in Child’s best interests, we

      affirm that portion of the trial court’s order. However, concluding that the trial

      court clearly erred when it awarded Father primary physical custody of Child,

      we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order and remand with instructions

      for the trial court to enter an order that reflects its reconsideration and

      clarification of the custody issue and includes a determination regarding what

      physical custody award is in Child’s best interests.

[2]   We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

      Issues
              1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
                 determination that relocation was not in Child’s best interests.

              2. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it awarded Father
                 primary physical custody of Child.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024            Page 2 of 26
      Facts
[3]   Mother, originally from northern California, graduated from Kansas State

      University in 2018. She moved to Carroll County, Indiana, for an employment

      opportunity with Indiana Packers Corporation as a food safety supervisor.

      That summer, Mother met and entered into a relationship with Father.

[4]   Mother became pregnant by Father in 2020. After Child was born in April
                1
      2021, Mother left her employment and stayed home with Child. Father

      worked outside the home. Mother and Father (collectively, “Parents”)

      cohabitated and co-parented Child until March 2022, when Parents’

      relationship soured. After the relationship had ended, Mother filed for and

      obtained a protective order against Father.

[5]   In April 2022, Mother filed a verified petition to establish paternity, custody,

      child support, and visitation. In May, the trial court appointed a Guardian Ad

      Litem (“GAL”). In June, Parents entered into and filed with the trial court an

      agreed order that established Father’s parenting-time schedule with Child for

      the month of June.

[6]   That same month, Mother accepted a position with Utah-based DFS Gourmet

      Specialties, Inc. (“DFS”) that allowed her to work remotely from her home in

      Indiana. Mother worked approximately forty (40) hours per week and earned

      1
          Father signed a paternity affidavit to establish paternity of Child.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 3 of 26
      $22.70 per hour. DFS indicated that it would hold an in-house position for

      Mother at their offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, through the end of 2022. Father

      worked for Nanshan America, in Lafayette, as a supervisor. He worked a
                                          2
      twelve-hour 2-2-3 schedule and earned a salary of $68,000 per year.

[7]   On June 29, 2022, Mother filed her notice of intent to relocate, indicating her

      desire to move with Child to Lehi, Utah. On July 5, 2022, Father filed his

      objection to Mother’s notice of intent to relocate. On July 21, 2022, Parents

      filed, and the trial court subsequently approved, a second agreed order that

      established Father’s parenting-time schedule with Child for July. In August

      2022, Parents filed a third agreed order governing Father’s parenting-time

      schedule with Child for August.

[8]   On August 22, 2022, the GAL filed her report with the trial court. The GAL

      recommended that Mother be allowed to relocate to Utah with Child “to be

      near her family, her support systems, and the job [at DFS] awaiting her.”

      (App. Vol. 2 at 58). The GAL also recommended that Mother be awarded

      primary physical custody of Child, as Mother had been Child’s “primary

      caregiver since birth, and due to [Child’s] young age[,] it would be traumatic for

      her to be separated from Mother.” (App. Vol. 2 at 58).

      2
       Under a 2-2-3 work schedule, employees work two or three consecutive shifts with two or three days off
      over the course of a four-week cycle.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                             Page 4 of 26
[9]    In September 2022, Parents filed a fourth agreed order establishing Father’s

       parenting-time schedule with Child for September and October. In early

       October 2022, Father changed employers. Subsequently, Father’s work

       schedule changed to weekends – specifically, Friday through Sunday from 5:00

       a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

[10]   In November 2022, Parents participated in a court-mandated mediation. On

       November 30, 2022, the mediator filed her report, indicating that Parents had

       reached an agreement regarding, among other things, Father’s parenting-time

       schedule with Child for December. The following day, the trial court approved

       Parents’ mediation agreement.

[11]   On December 5 and 12, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on all matters

       pending before it. At the December 12 hearing (“Final Hearing”), Mother

       testified that she wanted to relocate to Utah to be near her family support

       system which included her mother, step-father, sister, nieces, and other

       extended family members. Mother further testified that upon relocation to

       Utah, she and Child would live with Mother’s parents, and Mother’s mother

       and sister would provide childcare for Child at no cost. Mother also testified

       that the relocation would provide Child with the opportunity to be with

       extended family, including cousins that are her age. Father testified that he did

       not believe relocation was in Child’s best interests.

[12]   As the Final Hearing progressed, the trial court periodically interrupted Parents’

       respective counsel and questioned both Mother and Father as they testified.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 5 of 26
       During Mother’s direct examination, the trial court questioned Mother and

       then made extensive remarks suggesting that if Mother believed that moving to

       Utah with Child was truly in Child’s best interests, Mother would have moved

       to Utah with Child and not remained in Indiana. The trial court further

       suggested that by staying in Indiana and choosing to file a paternity action and

       seek a protective order against Father in Indiana, Mother might have been

       acting in her own best interests and not that of Child. The trial court also

       suggested that Mother might have been attempting to gain the upper hand over

       Father and control his parenting time with Child.

[13]   Specifically, the trial court engaged Mother in the following colloquy:

               THE COURT: I know . . . it’s one of those things where -- you
               realize you and [Father] weren’t married, right?

               [MOTHER]: Yes.

               THE COURT: Because you said that you went to seek counsel
               about, like, legally ending the relationship or something. I forget
               your exact testimony, but it made it seem like you were
               consulting it. You said I had to talk to an attorney about ending
               the relationship.

               [MOTHER]: I think I used the word “separation”.

               THE COURT: Right. That’s not a thing that exists though, you
               know that, right? Like people break up and they just move on.
               They’re not married. There’s not any legal connection between
               them.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 6 of 26
               [MOTHER]: I was just making sure to cover all my bases with
               [Father] living with me and then helping with the rent.

               THE COURT: It’s tough for this neutral observer because[,] on
               the one hand, I want to give you kudos for following the law to
               the T and trying to do everything correctly. On the other, given
               what we’ve heard, it seems almost like you want to have the
               ability to be in control of the situation and all the terms, and
               that’s kind of your overriding goal.

       (App. Vol. 2 at 78).

[14]   The trial court further remarked:

               [A]nd so the reason I’m struggling is, rather than just move to
               Utah in March, which was your full legal right to do, and then
               you’re getting everything you want. In your mind, you’re doing
               what’s best for the child because you’re doing what’s best for
               you. And then the burden is fully on Father to figure out if he
               wants to have a relationship with the kid or not, and then he
               either figures it out or doesn’t, right? . . . . But instead of
               choosing that outcome, which is what you’re asking for now,
               you’re asking for the Court to bless what you could have done
               before with all the same conditions and terms that you want[.] . .
               . But rather than just move to Utah yourself, we got the
               protective order . . . .”

       (Tr. Vol. 2 at 80).

[15]   The trial court also stated to Mother:

               [I]t seems like you’re trying to stay connected to [Father], like
               you’re trying to get him to live how you want him to live, rather
               than just doing what’s best for the kid because if what’s best for

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024           Page 7 of 26
               the kid is moving to Utah, why didn’t you just move to Utah in
               March [2022] rather than file the protective order here?

                                                      *****

               So rather than move to Utah with your child because you’re
               afraid of Father and need protection from him, we stay in
               Indiana, [and] file for [a] protective order.

                                                      *****

               And then you pursue the legal options of doing this legal
               relationship with Father, which is—needs to happen, should
               have happened earlier, but didn’t, and so I guess my overarching
               question is was it—if it is in the child’s best interest for this to
               happen, why didn’t it just happen?

       (Tr. Vol. 2 at 81).

[16]   The Court went on to state the following:

               It’s a complicated thing, and I’m not being fair with my
               questions, but it’s just – I’m not going to change Mother or
               Father and Mother and Father are going to have to find a way to
               co-parent. . . . I’m concerned about the foundation and the
               decision that the Court is going to have to make based on what
               appears to be at least not a fully thought-out plan because as a
               legal—just a legal question it makes no sense to submit yourself
               to a jurisdiction on the off chance that you’re not going to get the
               relief that you want, when you could have just done what you
               wanted, if, in fact, [it] is what’s best for the kid.

               But at the same time, it almost seems like Mother had questions
               about whether it was best for the kid, wanted to do things right,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024          Page 8 of 26
               wanted to go through the Court so that if the Court says yes, then
               she can basically tell Father that she’s in charge for the end of
               time. If the Court says no, then I don’t know what[.] Mom, I’m
               guessing, is going to stay in Indiana and raise the kid in a
               miserable existence, being disrespected by Father’s extended
               family and not having the support, and then trying to move
               somewhere else in a year or two or three and it doesn’t seem like
               that outcome is good either.

               So there’s not going to be a good outcome, because the best
               outcome would have been you doing what was correct in the first
               place, and that didn’t happen. And so now we’re trying to make
               ourselves feel good about some difficult choices that we’re
               wanting to make, moving a child cross-country from the child’s
               parent. And there’s no – we can’t say it’s anything other than
               that. We’ve got a parent wanting to move across country away
               from the other parent, and that’s permissible, and it may be in the
               child’s best interest, but, my goodness, that’s a tough . . . decision
               to make.

       (Tr. Vol. 2 at 82-84).

[17]   On March 21, 2023, the trial court issued a nine-page order that established

       custody, parenting time, child support, insurance, and tax exemptions (“Final

       Order”). The trial court determined initially that Mother’s proposed move to

       Utah was in good faith and for a legitimate reason. However, the trial court

       denied Mother’s request to relocate Child to Utah based upon a best interests

       determination. The trial court awarded Parents joint legal custody of Child and

       awarded Father primary physical custody of Child.

[18]   In its Final Order, the trial court provided the following findings, in relevant

       part:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024          Page 9 of 26
               8. Prior to invoking jurisdiction of this Court, Mother was vested
               with sole legal custody of [Child] pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-14-
               13-1.

               9. Mother did not determine it was in [Child’s] best interests to
               live in Utah when vested with sole legal custody as evidenced by
               the fact that Mother and [Child] remain in Indiana.

               10. By initiating a custody case in Indiana, the Court defers to
               Mother’s sound judgment regarding appropriate jurisdiction for
               [Parents’] child’s custody case.

               11. Mother could have moved to Utah and Father would have
               had to pursue custody/visitation rights through Utah.

       (App. Vol. 2 at 141). In awarding primary physical custody of Child to Father,

       the trial court found:

               77. As Mother is no longer present in the state where the child
               resides, Father is vested with primary physical custody of [Child].

       (App. Vol. 2 at 146).

[19]   On March 22, 2023, Mother filed a motion to correct error, challenging the trial

       court’s grant of primary physical custody of Child to Father that appeared to be

       based upon the trial court’s finding that Mother was no longer living in Indiana.

       Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s motion. On March 28, 2023, Mother

       filed her motion to stay the trial court’s Final Order. The following day, Father

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 10 of 26
       filed a motion in opposition to Mother’s motion to stay. The trial court did not
                                    3
       rule on the pleadings.

[20]   Mother now appeals.

       Decision
[21]   Mother argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the trial

       court’s determination that relocation was not in Child’s best interests; and (2)

       the trial court clearly erred when it awarded Father primary physical custody of

       Child. We address each of her contentions in turn.

       Standard of Review

[22]   Where, as here, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law at

       the request of the parties, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Maddux v.

       Maddux, 40 N.E.3d 971, 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), reh’g denied. First, we

       determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, whether the

       findings support the judgment. Id. We will set aside findings if they are clearly

       erroneous, which occurs only when the record contains no facts to support

       them either directly or by inference. Campbell v. Campbell, 993 N.E.2d 205, 209

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “A judgment is clearly erroneous when it is

       unsupported by the findings of fact and the conclusions relying on those

       3
        Mother filed her Notice of Appeal on March 30, 2023, and this Court assumed jurisdiction over the matter
       on that same day, upon the trial court clerk’s filing of the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record. See IND.
       APPELLATE RULE 8 (“The Court on Appeal acquires jurisdiction on the date the Notice of Completion of
       Clerk’s Record is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                               Page 11 of 26
       findings.” TMC Transp., Inc. v. Maslanka, 744 N.E.2d 1052, 1055 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2001), trans. denied. It is not enough on appeal that the evidence might support

       some other conclusion; rather, the evidence must positively require the result

       sought by the appellant. D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951, 957 (Ind. 2012).

       Accordingly, we will not substitute our own judgment if any evidence or

       legitimate inferences support the trial court’s judgment. Id. In addition, “[i]n

       reviewing the order being appealed, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor

       assess witness credibility, instead considering only the evidence that supports

       the trial court’s judgment together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn

       therefrom.” Paternity of X.A.S. v. S.K., 928 N.E.2d 222, 224 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2010), trans. denied.

[23]   We further note that there is a well-established preference in Indiana “‘for

       granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.’”

       Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (quoting In re Marriage of

       Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178, 178 (Ind. 1993)). In this regard, the Indiana

       Supreme Court has explained as follows:

               Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial court
               judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted
               because of their unique, direct interactions with the parties face-
               to-face, often over an extended period of time. Thus enabled to
               assess credibility and character through both factual testimony
               and intuitive discernment, our trial judges are in a superior
               position to ascertain information and apply common sense,
               particularly in the determination of the best interests of the
               involved children.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 12 of 26
       Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011).

       1. Relocation

[24]   Under certain circumstances, such as those in the present case, a parent

       intending to move residences must file a notice of that intention. See IND.

       CODE § 31-17-2.2-1. When a parent files a notice of intent to relocate, the

       nonrelocating parent may object by moving to modify custody or to prevent the

       child’s relocation. I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(a). When an objection is made, the

       relocating parent has the burden to establish that the proposed relocation is

       made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. See I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(e). If that

       burden is met, the burden then shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that

       the proposed relocation is not in the best interests of the child. See I.C. § 31-17-

       2.2-5(f).

[25]   In considering the proposed relocation, the trial court must take into account

       the following factors:

               (1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.

               (2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating
               individual to exercise parenting time[.]

               (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
               nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable parenting
               time . . . arrangements, including consideration of the financial
               circumstances of the parties.

               (4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the
               relocating individual, including actions by the relocating

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 13 of 26
               individual to either promote or thwart a nonrelocating
               individual’s contact with the child.

               (5) The reasons provided by the:

                        (A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and

                        (B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of the
                        child.

               (6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

       I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(c); Lynn v. Freeman, 157 N.E.3d 17, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

       The reference to other factors includes those factors applicable in an initial

       custody determination as set out in INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2-8. Lynn, 157

       N.E.3d at 26. Those factors include the child’s age and sex; the child’s

       relationship with parents, siblings, and others; and the child’s adjustment to

       home, school, and the community. Id.

       Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Trial Court’s Findings

[26]   Mother contends that the trial court clearly erred in determining that her

       requested relocation to Utah was not in Child’s best interests. Mother argues

       that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s

       denial of her request. Specifically, Mother challenges the following findings

       made by the trial court:

                    • the $3,121 approximate cost Parents would incur each
                      time they traveled between Indiana and Utah to exercise
                      parenting time with Child;

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 14 of 26
             • the “significant” “hardship and expense” involved in
               Father exercising parenting time;

             • traveling between Indiana and Utah would “likely
               liquidate the parties’ paid-time-off, limiting time off work
               and/or travel opportunities” for Parents and Child outside
               of parenting time;

             • the “low” feasibility of preserving the relationship between
               Father and Child through suitable parenting time
               arrangements;

             • the difficulty Parents experienced in working together on
               parenting time with Child;

             • Mother “interprets, incorrectly, the Indiana Parenting
               Time Guidelines as a maximum rather than a minimum
               quantum of parenting time afforded to non-custodial
               parents”;

             • each month, before Father was allowed parenting time
               with Child, Mother required Father to negotiate the
               parenting time and then sign an agreement memorializing
               the parenting-time schedule for that particular month;

             • Mother insisted that the trial court approve each monthly
               parenting-time schedule;

             • Mother denied Father parenting time on days that had
               been agreed to, “solely because the [written agreements]
               were not yet submitted to and approved by the [trial
               court]”;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 15 of 26
                    • Mother imposed “restrictions” on Father’s ability to
                      exercise parenting time that were “unduly” restrictive and
                      “without rational basis”; and

                    • allowing Child to relocate to Utah with Mother would
                      “likely have a substantial negative affect” on Father’s and
                      Child’s relationship.

       (App. Vol. 2 at 142-144).

[27]   However, our review of the record reveals that the record contains substantial

       evidence supporting the challenged findings. At the final hearing, the trial court

       heard testimony from Mother, Father, and Father’s brother. The evidence

       revealed that distance is a major factor in this case, as Lehi, Utah is a five-hour

       flight from Delphi, Indiana, and a twenty-one-hour drive. Father testified that

       the trips to Utah would be a problem for him, financially. Regarding the costs

       of traveling between Indiana and Utah, Mother and Father each submitted

       evidence, in the form of market research gathered from travel websites, on

       estimated airfare, lodging, and rental car expenses from which the trial court

       could determine an approximate cost of the trip. Mother testified that she could

       shoulder her travel expenses – as well as half of Father’s travel expenses to Utah

       – because she would be able to live with her parents in their home in Utah and,

       thus, keep her living expenses low.

[28]   As for Parents’ work schedules, Father testified that he would be working only

       on weekends, and Mother testified that she could work remotely when she

       traveled to Indiana. However, Father also testified that his employer provided

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 16 of 26
       limited paid time off, which would make it difficult for Father to be present in

       Utah for Child’s “extracurricular[ activities], doctors’ appointments, [and] sick

       days” or to provide emergency caregiving in the event Mother was unable to

       care for Child. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 115). During cross-examination, Mother agreed

       that it would be difficult for Father to attend Child’s doctors’ appointments and

       extracurricular activities or provide emergency caregiving if Child lived in Utah.

[29]   Regarding parenting time, the evidence of record established that Parents had

       difficulty agreeing to and exercising parenting time with Child. Father testified

       that Mother required the parenting-time schedule to be memorialized in writing

       monthly. She required the writing to be signed by Parents and approved by the

       trial court before she would allow Father to exercise parenting time with Child.

       She also required any changes to the monthly parenting-time schedule to be

       outlined in writing, signed by both parents, and approved by the trial court

       before she would honor the changes to the schedule. When asked on direct

       examination if Father believed Mother was “gatekeeping” his parenting time

       with Child, Father answered, “Yes.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 110). Father added: “I

       would ask for days and [Mother] would basically say that it’s not my time[.] At

       points, I was even denied Fridays with [Child]. I asked why. I never got a

       response[.] It’s just . . . kind of her way or no way.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 111).

[30]   Mother testified that the main difficulty she experienced with coming up with a

       parenting-time schedule was “[g]etting a [parenting-time] agreement that

       [Parents] both agree[d] with, that’s reasonable for times and dates, getting it

       written down on paper, and signed so we both have accountability.” (Tr. Vol. 2

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 17 of 26
       at 26-27). Mother also testified that she had refused to allow Father to keep

       Child overnight because “that’s not one of the responsibilities [Father] ever had

       when living with [Mother and Child,]” and that Father “really [wa]sn’t familiar

       with [Child’s] nighttime routine at all or getting up in the middle of the nights

       with [Child].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 30).

[31]   When asked on direct examination what Mother believed would be an

       appropriate visitation and parenting-time schedule for Father, should the trial

       court allow Mother to relocate to Utah, Mother testified:

               If he were to be making the trips to Utah, I would -- I mean I
               would like it to be in writing and kind of decided beforehand, not
               last minute, but I mean I would give him all the availability that
               he would ask to . . . make that accommodation to come [to
               Utah]. And then also I think it would be reasonable for myself to
               travel with [Child], if so requested, back to Indiana so she can
               spend time with [Father’s] family once a month, maybe once
               every two months, just depending . . . [.]

       (Tr. Vol. 2 at 45). Mother further testified that each visit by the traveling parent

       would last one week. Regarding other methods for Father to maintain his

       relationship with Child, Mother proposed the following:

               FaceTime agreements. I know there’s been a lot of discussion
               about FaceTime, but [Child]’s right at the cusp of two years old,
               so I think she’d be adapting pretty quickly. . . . But yeah,
               frequent FaceTime constantly.

       (Tr. Vol. 2 at 49).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024        Page 18 of 26
[32]   Regarding the effect Child’s relocation would have on Father’s relationship

       with Child, Father told the trial court that he believed his relationship with

       Child would be “diminished.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 117). When asked on direct

       examination if Father believed that “any controlling behaviors or gatekeeping

       [on Mother’s part] will get better if [Child] relocates to Utah with [Mother,]”

       Father testified, “I don’t think so. . . . I think it will honestly get worse.” (Tr.

       Vol. 2 at 118).

[33]   As we have noted above, the standard of review in matters such as this is not de

       novo. D.C., 977 N.E.2d at 957. “‘On appeal it is not enough that the evidence

       might support some other conclusion, but it must positively require the

       conclusion contended for by appellant before there is a basis for reversal.’” Id.

       (quoting Brickley v. Brickley, 247 Ind. 201, 204, 210 N.E.2d 850, 852 (1965)).

       We “will not substitute our own judgment if any evidence or legitimate

       inferences support the trial court’s judgment.” Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d

       1252, 1257-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[34]   Here, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the challenged

       findings regarding the relocation of Child to Utah. Mother’s arguments to the

       contrary amount to an improper request that we reweigh the evidence and

       assess witness credibility differently than the trial court did. Adhering to our

       standard of review, we decline. Id. at 1257.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024          Page 19 of 26
       Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Trial Court’s Best Interests
       Determination

[35]   We further determine that the evidence of record supports the trial court’s

       determination that relocation was not in Child’s best interests. The trial court’s

       order reveals that in reaching its determination, the trial court carefully and

       properly applied the facts of this case to the relevant statutory factors listed in

       INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2.2-1(c), and also – contrary to Mother’s argument – to

       the other factors found in INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2-8.

[36]   The trial court found: Parents met in Indiana; Child was conceived in Indiana;

       Parents cohabitated with Child in Indiana; Child’s “entire life, brief as it may

       be, has occurred in Indiana”; neither parent has other children; Parents are

       “legally entitled to have a relationship [with Child],” and the trial court’s “goal

       is to maximize each parent’s opportunity for a relationship with their child”; the

       “risk [that Father’s relationship with Child would be diminished by relocation]

       is elevated because of [Child’s] young age and the need for frequency of contact

       between parent and child”; and Child’s young age “makes frequency of contact
                                                                  4
       with [Parents] in the best interest” of Child. (App. Vol. 2 at 143, 145). The

       trial court acknowledged the GAL’s recommendation that Mother be allowed

       4
         Mother also argues that in determining whether relocation was in Child’s best interests, the trial court
       should have first considered the factors found in INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2-8 and then considered those found
       in INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2.2-1(c). However, Mother cites no case law to support her argument.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                           Page 20 of 26
       to relocate to Utah with Child but found that it could not reach the same

       conclusion.

[37]   Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s conclusion that relocation

       was not in Child’s best interests is well-supported by the trial court’s findings,

       and we hold that neither the findings nor the judgment regarding relocation are

       clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err when it
                                                                                                    5
       concluded that relocation to Utah was not in Child’s best interests.

       2. Custody

[38]   Next, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding

       primary physical custody of Child to Father. Determinations regarding child

       custody fall within the trial court’s sound discretion. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 103

       N.E.3d 690, 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. In an initial custody

       determination, both parents are presumed equally entitled to custody. Id. The

       trial court “shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance

       with the best interests of the child” by considering all relevant factors,

       including:

                (1) The age and sex of the child.

       5
         Mother also takes issue with Father’s testimony at the final hearing that it was not in Child’s best interests
       to relocate to Utah because the move would prevent Child from learning about her Father’s culture, heritage,
       and religious beliefs. However, we note that the trial court did not refer to this evidence in its findings.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                                Page 21 of 26
         (2) The wishes of the child’s parents.

         (3) 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:

                  (A) the child’s parents;

                  (B) the child’s sibling; and

                  (C) any other person who may significantly affect the
                  child’s best interests.

         (5) The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.

         (6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

         (7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either
         parent.

         (8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto
         custodian . . . .

                        6
I.C. § 31-14-13-2.

6
 We note that the trial court referenced INDIANA CODE § 31-17-2-8 in its order. However, Chapter 31-17-2 is
applicable in dissolution actions. It is chapter 31-14-13 that is applicable in paternity proceedings, and this
case arose as a paternity action. Therefore, the trial court was bound to consider the factors in INDIANA
CODE § 31-14-13-2 in making its physical custody determination. Regardless, both § 31-17-2-8 and § 31-14-
13-2 contain identical provisions. See In re Paternity of A.R.S., 198 N.E.3d 423, 431 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                               Page 22 of 26
[39]   The trial court’s consideration of the best interests of the child is not limited to

       those factors explicitly listed in the statute. Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513,

       515 (Ind. 1997). Further, when “a trial court is making an initial custody

       determination, it is required to consider all evidence from the time of [the]

       child’s birth in determining the custody arrangement that would be in the best

       interest of [the] child.” In re Paternity of M.W., 949 N.E.2d 839, 843 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2011).

[40]   We do not disturb a child custody determination absent an abuse of discretion.

       Russell, 682 N.E.2d at 515. Thus, we will only reverse the trial court’s decision

       “if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or the

       reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” In re Paternity of M.W., 949 N.E.2d at

       842. In deference to the trial court’s proximity to the issues, we do not reweigh

       the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Hughes v. Rogusta, 830

       N.E.2d 898, 902 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Instead, we consider the evidence most

       favorable to the judgment, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the

       judgment. Id.

[41]   Mother argues that the trial court erred when it awarded primary physical

       custody of Child to Father. Mother contends that the trial court did not include

       any findings that indicate it considered the initial custody factors found in

       INDIANA CODE § 31-14-13-2. According to Mother, the trial court “devotes”

       most of its Final Order to “examining the relocation factors . . . , but never

       specifically makes an initial custody determination based on the applicable

       statutory factors.” (Mother’s Br. 17). Mother maintains that the trial court

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024         Page 23 of 26
       based its physical custody determination “solely on the (incorrect) finding that

       Mother no longer resides in the State of Indiana.” (Mother’s Br. 17). We agree

       with Mother.

[42]   In support of its decision to award primary physical custody to Father, the trial

       court considered Child’s young age, Child’s connection to the Delphi

       community, and whether Child had siblings, finding: Child was conceived in

       Indiana; Parents cohabitated with Child in Indiana; Child’s “entire life, brief as

       it may be, has occurred in Indiana”; and neither parent has other children.

       (App. Vol. 2 at 145). However, there are no findings by the trial court regarding

       its custody determination that could feasibly be said to comment upon Parents’

       wishes, the relationship of Child with Parents and with her extended family, the

       mental and physical health of all individuals involved, and any evidence of a

       pattern of domestic abuse or family violence by either parent.

[43]   Rather than considering all the required relevant factors, the trial court appears

       to have considered only some of the factors and then based its custody

       determination almost entirely on a finding that Mother was no longer living in

       Indiana – specifically, “[a]s Mother is no longer present in the state where the

       child resides, Father is vested with primary physical custody of [Child].” (App.

       Vol. 2 at 146). However, no evidence was presented to show that Mother had

       personally relocated to Utah. Therefore, this finding is clearly erroneous. See

       Campbell, 993 N.E.2d at 209 (findings are clearly erroneous only when the

       record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024       Page 24 of 26
[44]   The trial court should have considered all of the relevant factors listed in

       INDIANA CODE § 31-14-13-2—plus any other relevant considerations—from the

       time of Child’s birth in making an award of physical custody. See Baxendale,

       878 N.E.2d at 1254; In re Paternity of M.W., 949 N.E.2d at 843. By relying on

       only some of the factors and basing its custody determination largely on a

       finding that was unsupported by the evidence, we find that the trial court

       abused its discretion.

[45]   Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s award of primary physical custody to

       Father and remand for the trial court to reconsider the issue in light of our

       decision. Upon remand, we instruct the trial court to enter a physical custody

       order that reflects consideration of all of the factors concerning Child’s best

       interests and provides proper findings supported by the evidence as well as
                                                                                                              7
       additional findings that better articulate its physical custody determination.

[46]   Furthermore, we do not condone the trial court’s manner of inquiry, remarks,

       and on-the-record musings regarding Mother’s decision to remain in Indiana

       with Child and file her paternity action in, and seek a protective order from, the

       7
         In her Appellant’s Brief, Mother briefly mentions that the trial court exhibited bias toward her which,
       according to Mother, “precluded [her] from having a fair and impartial trial on the issue of relocation.”
       (Mother’s Br. 4). However, that is the entirety of her argument, and her failure to cite any authority for it
       waives the issue for our review. See Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A] party
       waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate
       citation to authority and portions of the record.”), trans. denied; IND. APPELLATE RULE 46(A)(8) (stating that
       appellant’s brief must contain contentions on issues presented and that each contention must be supported by
       cogent reasoning and citations to authorities and statutes relied on).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024                               Page 25 of 26
       Indiana courts. The trial court’s prolonged thinking-out-loud comments along

       those lines were inappropriate.

       Conclusion
[47]   Based on the foregoing, we hold that sufficient evidence was presented to

       support the trial court’s determination that relocation was not in Child’s best

       interests. However, we further hold that the trial court clearly erred when it

       awarded primary physical custody of Child to Father. Therefore, we reverse

       the trial court’s physical custody determination and remand with instructions

       that the trial court enter an order that reflects its reconsideration and

       clarification of that issue and includes a determination regarding what physical

       custody award is in Child’s best interests.

[48]   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

       Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-688| January 11, 2024          Page 26 of 26