Court Opinion

ID: 9738041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:41:17.220873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.379350
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe the trial court has manifestly abused its discretion in this matter.
As Chief Judge Ratliff recently said
When reviewing a trial court's determination concerning visitation by a non-custodial parent we may reverse only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of the trial judge's discretion. In re Julien (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 651.
Such an abuse of discretion will not be found unless the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Our function on appeal is 'to examine the decision of the trial court and determine whether the record discloses evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which serve as a rational basis to support the finding of the trial court.! We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. *967[Citations omitted]. K.B. v. S.B. (1981), Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 749, 755.
Carter v. Dec (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 564, 566. Thus, the question becomes what is the breadth of a trial court's discretion concerning the grant or withholding of visitation rights of the non-custodial parent in this case? Our legislature has clearly defined those parameters. IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-24 provides in part
SEC. 24. (a) a parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation by the parent might endanger the child's physical health....
(b) the court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child, but the court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation might endanger the child's physical health.... (Emphasis supplied).
Our legislature has determined as a matter of public policy the best interests of the child are paramount, and trial courts are to deny non-custodial parents visitation if such visitation might endanger the child's physical health.
I do not agree with the majority we are to restrict the meaning of "might" as used in the statute to mean visitation may be restricted only when it "would" endanger the child's physical well being. Such was not the intent of the legislature in my opinion. Had it so intended, that body would have used appropriate language such as "probably will", "reasonably may" or words of similar import. It is apparent to me the legislature intended "might" as used in the statute to carry its ordinary meaning which includes the "possibility" of an event occurring.
Our sole function on appeal is to determine whether the trial court's decision constituted a manifest abuse of discretion. The experts in this case testified to essentially two degrees of certainty as to methods by which the AIDS virus may be transmitted. First, it is reasonably certain the AIDS virus with which appellant Thomas is infected may be transmitted to third parties through sexual intercourse, the sharing of hypodermic needles, and blood transfusions.
Secondly, it is theoretically possible for a parent to infect a child with the AIDS virus while extracting a child's tooth1 Under these circumstances, a parent "might" infect his child with AIDS. Because the statute clearly invests the trial court with a broad discretion in this area, I believe the trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by denying appellant his visitation rights under these circumstances.
We may not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses on appeal. While we might have decided the matter differently had we been sitting as the trial court, that reason standing alone does not authorize reversal.
In sum, I would affirm because the trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion.

. Admittedly, a poor example upon which to 'base a hypothesis, but that was the evidence before the trial court.