Court Opinion

ID: 9897237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:04.965046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:49.423901
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Oct 31 2023, 9:50 am

                                                                                   CLERK
                                                                              Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                   and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Allison L. Martinez Wheeler                                Jonathan R. Deenik
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Deenik Lowe, LLC
                                                           Greenwood, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nadia Drake,                                               October 31, 2023
Appellant-Petitioner,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-DC-3089
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Marion Superior
                                                           Court
Zachary Drake,                                             The Honorable Ryan Gardner,
Appellee-Respondent.                                       Judge
                                                           The Honorable Sarah Glasser,
                                                           Magistrate
                                                           The Honorable Regina Tidwell,
                                                           Magistrate
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           49D10-2106-DC-4665

                                  Opinion by Judge Riley
                              Judges Crone and Mathias concur.

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023                       Page 1 of 12
      STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1]   Appellant-Petitioner, Nadia Drake (Wife), appeals the trial court’s findings of

      fact and conclusions thereon, dissolving her marriage to Appellee-Respondent,

      Zachary Drake (Husband).

[2]   We affirm.

      ISSUES
[3]   Wife presents this court with three issues on appeal, which we consolidate and

      restate as follows:

          (1) Whether the trial court’s provisional order and order on Husband’s

              motion to continue are void due to the Magistrate’s professional conflict

              with Husband’s counsel; and

          (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying wife’s request to

              relocate with the minor child to San Diego, California.

      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4]   The facts favorable to the trial court’s decision are as follows. In November

      2016, Wife and Husband met in Wife’s hometown of San Diego, California,

      while Husband was stationed at MCAS Miramar with the Marine Corps. At

      the time, Wife was a student at Miramar College, pursuing an associate degree

      in criminal justice. The parties also resided in Portland, Oregon, for a little over

      a year, where Wife worked with America’s Best as an eyecare specialist. On

      March 21, 2017, the parties married, and in March 2018, they moved to

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023      Page 2 of 12
      Indiana, where Husband pursued an aviation certificate. On August 10, 2018,

      L.D. (Child) was born to Wife and Husband.

[5]   On June 4, 2021, Wife filed her petition to dissolve the marriage. Five days

      later, on June 9, 2021, Wife filed a notice of intent to relocate. In her notice,

      Wife specified that she intended to relocate with Child to San Diego,

      California, to attend and complete school at San Diego Miramar College; that

      she received an offer of employment at NVision in San Diego, earning more

      than her current wages; and that she has a support system in San Diego that

      will help provide care and support for both her and Child. On July 6, 2021,

      Husband objected because “the proposed relocation would likely result in

      significant damage to the relationship between Child and Husband, for the

      reason that Husband and [C]hild have a very close and bonded relationship,

      and Husband had always exercised regular care responsibilities.” (Appellant’s

      App. Vol. II, p. 51).

[6]   At the end of January 2022, prior to the trial court’s ruling on Wife’s intent to

      relocate and with three days’ advance notice, Wife notified Husband that she

      and Child were leaving for a month-long vacation in California on February 2,

      2022. Husband immediately voiced his objection to Wife’s intended travel

      plans, as it would deprive him of his agreed-upon parenting time with Child.

      On February 7, 2022, the trial court issued a provisional order in the

      proceeding, establishing joint physical and legal custody of Child, with

      Husband paying weekly child support to Wife in the amount of $107. Despite

      this provisional order, Wife did not return to Indiana with Child. Instead,

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023       Page 3 of 12
      Husband filed a Verified Petition for Enforcement and Request for Immediate

      Hearing, requesting the trial court to compel Wife to return to Indiana and

      comply with his parenting time as established in the provisional order. On

      February 14, 2022, the trial court issued an order, compelling Wife to return

      Child from California before February 20, 2022. Wife complied with the order.

[7]   On November 28, 2022, the trial court issued its Decree of Dissolution after the

      parties stipulated to a property division in open court, which was approved by

      the trial court and incorporated in its Decree. The trial court issued the

      following conclusions in support of its denial of Wife’s intent to relocate:

              Wife’s relocation is in good faith and for a legitimate reason, as
              she wants to move closer to family to have more of a support
              network for her and the [C]hild.

              ****

              The [c]ourt notes it is a significant distance, over 2,000 miles,
              from San Diego, California to Indianapolis, Indiana. Husband
              will not be able to exercise his current parenting time schedule.

              Due to the distance between California and Indiana, most of
              Husband’s communication with the [C]hild would be through
              Facetime or a similar computer application when the [C]hild is in
              California. The [C]hild is not at an age where she is able to
              utilize such technology and communicate with Husband by
              phone or by computer to maintain the relationship and bond.
              Husband had to previously reestablish his bond with the [C]hild
              when Wife went to California with the [C]hild.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023         Page 4 of 12
        Wife would point to the parties’ payment of costs to transport the
        [C]hild between California and Indiana in 2019 as an indication
        that the expense is affordable. The [c]ourt notes that there was
        not a transportation expense for the [C]hild in 2019 as the [C]hild
        was an infant and flew for free. Additionally, Wife’s family was
        assisting Wife with her expense for her own ticket(s) and Wife
        indicated she has not gone to see her family due to her inability
        to pay for it. The parties would be required to spend significant
        sums of money each year for airline travel to and from
        California. [Child] is not old enough to travel as an
        unaccompanied minor, meaning each parent would have to fly
        round-trip for each instance of parenting time. Husband’s
        current employer does not include a benefit which could off-set
        the cost of his travel. The [c]ourt finds that neither party is in a
        financial position that would allow for the exercise of regular and
        consistent parenting time considering the cost associated with the
        parenting time.

        The [C]hild has close and loving relationships with many family
        members who live in and around the Indianapolis area. Those
        relationships and consistent contacts would not be able to
        continue as they are if the [C]hild relocated to California. While
        the [c]ourt is cognizant of the extensive family the [C]hild has in
        California, the evidence presented demonstrates that the [C]hild
        last spent time with them in February 2022 and prior to that, in
        May 2020. Outside of those contacts, the [C]hild has had very
        little recent in-person contact with those family members.

        Wife has established a pattern of conduct of leaving the State of
        Indiana with the [C]hild and going to California, thwarting
        Husband’s contact with the [C]hild. Husband had to seek [c]ourt
        involvement each time and Wife was ordered to return each
        time. Outside of these incidents, Wife has not significantly
        interfered with Husband’s bonding with the child.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023       Page 5 of 12
              The [c]ourt does not find credible Wife’s claim that she needs to
              return to California to complete an associate degree to pursue her
              chosen field as a funeral director. While Wife may have
              completed some schooling, she has not pursued any higher
              education for the last several years while living in Indiana. The
              [c]ourt has concerns with Wife’s plan to work full time, pursue
              schooling, and allow for her family to care for the [C]hild. If
              permitted to relocate, the [C]hild would spend the majority of her
              time with Wife’s family, but not [with] Wife or with Husband.
              Here, both parents are willing and able to maintain an active role
              in [Child’s] life.

              While Wife has been offered a position making slightly more
              money, the [c]ourt does not find the pay increase to be at all
              significant, considering the cost-of-living differences between San
              Diego and Indianapolis and the expense to travel between the
              two cities.

              The [c]ourt does not believe it feasible for Husband to maintain
              his current close relationship and bond with the [C]hild should
              she relocate to California. For over one year, the parties have
              exercised a joint legal and physical custody arrangement. By all
              accounts the [C]hild is happy, well-adjusted, and excelling. The
              [c]ourt attributes the [C]hild’s overall well-being to the parties,
              and their joint custody arrangement. A relocation would
              significantly alter the relationship between [C]hild and parent.

              It is not in the [Child’s] best interest to alter the nature and
              quality of the relationship with Husband by allowing the [C]hild
              to be relocated.

      (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 35-37).

[8]   Wife now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023          Page 6 of 12
       DISCUSSION AND DECISION
       I. Professional Conflict

[9]    Wife first contends that the trial court’s provisional order and order on

       Husband’s motion to continue are void due to the Magistrate’s professional

       conflict with Husband’s counsel. Besides a general recitation of the rules of

       Judicial Conduct and some case law relating to judicial bias and impropriety,

       Wife fails to articulate any argument or develop any analysis that would allow

       us to review the issue. In fact, her entire claim amounts to “[t]he trial court

       abused its discretion when [the Magistrate] did not disqualify herself upon

       learning that a professional conflict existed when Husband’s new counsel

       entered his appearance in the case.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 16). Beyond this broad

       statement, Wife does not further elaborate on the perceived reason for the

       disqualification or the type of ‘professional conflict.’

[10]   The purpose of the appellate rules, especially Indiana Appellate Rule 46, is to

       aid and expedite review, as well as to relieve the appellate court of the burden of

       searching the record and briefing the case. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342,

       345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) states that the

       argument section of an appellant’s brief “must contain the contentions of the

       appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each

       contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the

       Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” It is well settled that

       we will not consider an appellant’s assertion on appeal when she has failed to

       present cogent argument supported by authority and references to the record as
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023        Page 7 of 12
       required by the rules. Thacker, 797 N.E.2d at 345. If we were to address such

       arguments, we would be forced to abdicate our role as an impartial tribunal and

       would instead become an advocate for one of the parties. This, clearly, we

       cannot do. See id.; Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

       Accordingly, as Wife has failed to present us with a cogent argument, the issue

       is waived for our review. See id.

       II. Intent to Relocate

[11]   Next, Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her

       request to relocate Child to San Diego, California. The trial court entered

       findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Mother’s request under

       Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). Our standard of review is well-settled: We must first

       determine whether the record supports the factual findings, and then whether

       the findings support the judgment. M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 278, 281-82 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2010). On appeal, we will not set aside the findings or judgment

       unless they are clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the

       opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 282.

       We therefore consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and the

       reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, and we will neither reweigh the

       evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous

       when there is no evidence to support the findings, the findings do not support

       the judgment, or the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly

       found facts. Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023       Page 8 of 12
[12]   “In addition to the standard of review under Trial Rule 52, our supreme court

       has expressed a ‘preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial

       judges in family law matters.’” In re Paternity of Ba.S., 911 N.E.2d 1252, 1254

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178, 178

       (Ind. 1993)). Our supreme court re-emphasized this principle, stating that we

       afford such deference because of a trial court’s “unique, direct interactions with

       the parties face-to-face.” Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011). “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.” Id.; see also Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d

       304, 307 (Ind. 2002). Therefore, we “will not substitute our own judgment if

       any evidence or legitimate inferences support the trial court’s judgment. The

       concern for finality in custody matters reinforces this doctrine.” Baxendale v.

       Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1257-58 (Ind. 2008).

[13]   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. Ind.

       Code §§ 31-17-2.2-1(b); -5(a). When this objection is made, “[t]he relocating

       individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good

       faith and for a legitimate reason.” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(c). If the relocating parent

       shows good faith and a legitimate reason, “the burden shifts to the

       nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best

       interest of the child.” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(f). A court must weigh the following

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023       Page 9 of 12
       factors in considering a proposed relocation, as set forth in Indiana Code

       section 31-17-2.2-1(b):

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

               (2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating
               individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation.

               (3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
               nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable parenting
               time and grandparent visitation 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
               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.

       “Other factors affecting the best interest of the child” include, among other

       things, the child’s age and sex; the parents’ wishes; the child’s wishes, with the

       wishes of children fourteen years or older being given more weight; the child’s

       relationship with parents, siblings, and any other person affecting the child’s

       best interests; and the child’s adjustment to home, school, and the community.

       I.C. § 31-17-2-8; see also Baxendale, 878 N.E.2d at 1257.

[14]   In this case, the trial court found that Wife met the initial burden of showing a

       legitimate reason and good faith in relocating. The trial court then turned to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023       Page 10 of 12
       the issue of whether relocation of Child was in Child’s best interests. It

       ultimately concluded that relocation would not be in Child’s best interests,

       citing the following reasons: the distance and travel expenses involved in the

       move were significant; Husband was very involved in Child’s daily activities;

       Child has a bond with the extended family in and around the Indianapolis area;

       and relocation would cause a significant deterioration in Child’s relationships

       with Husband and Child’s extended family.

[15]   Instead of analyzing the trial court’s findings and conclusions with respect to

       the relocation and focusing on the court’s perceived errors therein, Wife

       presents us with her own enumeration of the statutory factors of the relocation

       statute in light of the evidence most favorable to her. For instance, despite

       extensive evidence to the contrary and the trial court’s conclusions, Wife

       continues to insist that Husband’s employment will pay for his travel expenses,

       and that Husband cannot exercise his parenting time due to his extensive

       employment-required travel schedule. To the contrary, Husband testified, and

       the trial court found credible, that Husband changed employment to a new

       position that no longer requires him to travel and that allows him to exercise his

       parenting time. In essence, Wife’s entire argument amounts to a request to

       reweigh the evidence and to revisit the credibility of the witnesses, which, in

       light of our deferential standard of review, we are not allowed to do. See M.S.,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023     Page 11 of 12
       938 N.E.2d at 282. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Wife’s

       request to relocate Child to California. 1

       CONCLUSION
[16]   Based on the foregoing, we hold that Wife waived her argument on the

       Magistrate’s perceived professional conflict for failure to present a cogent

       argument and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

       denying Wife’s request to relocate Child to San Diego, California.

[17]   Affirmed.

       Crone, J. and Mathias, J. concur

       1
        In the final paragraph of her appellate brief, Wife appears to contest the trial court’s child support order,
       makes a request for Husband to pay her rent, as well as a request to order Husband to pay her appellate
       attorney fees. Besides these general single-sentence allegations, Wife fails to present any analysis, let alone
       support these arguments with citations to the record and relevant case law. Accordingly, as wife failed to
       make a cogent argument, the issues are waived for our review. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DC-3089 | October 31, 2023                                Page 12 of 12