Court Opinion

ID: 9540585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:17:59.931463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:03.533021
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's Order. In its opinion the majority attempts to please everyone: on the one hand, it affirms the trial court's Order, while at the same time the majority directs the trial court to reconsider its custody determination in line with Anita's request. While I agree that the custody determination, as it is ordered by the trial court, has to revisited, I would reverse the trial court's decision on Anita's motion to correct error and remand for a new trial, thereby necessitating custody of A.H. to remain with Anita until a hearing could be held.
The majority commences its opinion by concluding that Anita's motion to correct error pursuant to Trial Rule 59 is defective because it omits Anita's supporting affidavit. However, the majority ignores that Anita's motion to correct error incorporates her affidavit. The motion is based on Anita's version of events and is signed by Anita's counsel and Anita herself, who affirms "under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true." (Appellant's App. p. 34). In addition, Anita attaches other reports and an affidavit as supporting evidence for her representations. As I refuse.to elevate form over substance, I would consider Anita's motion to correct error to be without "procedural defect." Op. p. 738.
Anita's motion and later testimony at trial speaks about the parties' tumultuous relationship, the domestic violence during *740the marriage, and Kevin's anger issues. It is well documented that Kevin was not only abusive towards Anita, but also physically abusive to the children. Over time and despite the existence of protective orders, the violence grew and culminated in Kevin's plea to a Class D felony domestic battery. Eventually, Anita and the children moved to South Carolina because she feared for her and the children's "safety." (Tr. p. 49). When Anita learned that the trial court had set the final hearing on Anita's petition to dissolve the marriage, she attempted to find an attorney through legal aid and the resources to travel back to Indiana. Despite Anita's request for a continuance, the trial court, on July 22, 2008, proceeded with the final hearing on the divorce decree in Anita's absence and awarded Kevin full custody of A.H. After conducting a hearing on Anita's motion to correct error, the trial court amended its Order, granting joint eustody with primary physical custody to reside with Kevin.4
In the procedurally similar situation of Walker v. Kelley, 819 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (internal citations omitted), we stated that
More importantly, granting Mother's motion to correct error comports with the trial court's duty to determine whether a modification of existing support and custody arrangements is in the best interests of the children. In making that determination, the courts shall consider all relevant factors, including ... (6) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved and (7) evidence of a pattern of domestic violence by either parent. In this case, we do not see how the best interests of the children could be ascertained without a hearing that affords both parents the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, particularly where, as here, both parents have actively participated in the ongoing custody dispute from the beginning and when allegations of domestic violence and physical and mental infirmity are involved.
Setting aside the default judgment requires Father to do nothing more than what he was prepared to so on [the previous hearing], that is, participate in a full hearing at which each parent would have the opportunity to show how the children's best interests would be served by making him or her the eusto-dial parent. On the other hand, if the default judgment were allowed to stand, Mother's oversight would result in the loss of her children, an injustice which far outweighs the inconvenience that Father would suffer and society's interest in the finality of litigation. While the judicial system normally cannot allow its processes to be stymied by simple inattention, the principle of judicial economy must yield to considerations of justice.
In line with Walker and its policy considerations, I would grant Mother's motion to correct error and remand for a new final hearing.

. I am troubled by the trial judge's judgment in her award of custody. The trial judge in the case at issue also ruled on the custody modification of Kevin's daughter by a prior marriage. Specifically, on August 16, 2007, the trial judge ordered Kevin's parenting time with his daughter by a prior marriage halted y 66g because of Kevin's "irate behavior." (Appellant's App. 47). Apparently, the domestic violence, Kevin's physical abuse towards A.H., and his anger issues in this cause do not reach the required level of "irate behavior" to prevent Kevin's custody of A.H.