Court Opinion

ID: 9716559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:43:53.495564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.851738
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissent to the earlier reported decision, I dissent to the opinion on rehearing. The judiciary and bar are better served by open and continuous dialogue regarding legal issues. Dogmatic adherence to formulas devised prior to considerations such as joint legal custody does not realistically reflect the necessary evolution of the legal process.
While it is evident that amicable resolution of custody matters would be far preferable to intervention by courts, courts are regularly called upon to decide such issues. Recognition that joint custody arrangements present unique demands upon the parties, children and courts would facilitate the resolution of custody disputes. By enacting provisions specific to joint custody arrangements, IND.CODE § 31-1-11.5-21(f)-(g), the legislature exposed the distinction between initial awards of sole custody and initial awards of joint custody. The distinction is no less important to modification proceedings.
I would vote to grant rehearing and affirm the judgment of the trial court.