Court Opinion

ID: 9541424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:25:16.5617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:51.544643
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring with separate opinion.
I concur fully with the majority's opinion but write separately in light of the unique cireumstances presented here. Inasmuch as the police are vested with the duty " 'to suppress all breaches of the peace within their knowledge,"" they reasonably instructed Eric to refuse Norris visitation with the children until tempers calmed. Op. at 198 (quoting Ind.Code § 36-8-3-6b(c)(4)). Following those police instructions, Eric acted lawfully in refusing Norris visitation. A different outcome would have obtained had Eric acted unilaterally-that is, without police instruction or judicial authorization. Our General Assembly has committed ultimate authority over child custody and visitation matters to Indiana courts, not private citizens or law enforcement personnel. See, eg., Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 ("The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the best interests of the child."); Ind.Code § 31-17-2-18 (granting court authority "to exercise continuing supervision over the case to assure that the custodial or visitation terms of the decree are carried out"); Ind.Code § 31-17-2-21 (granting court authority to modify custody). 'In the future, the courts' use and statewide articulation of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, together with consistent "parenting time," might help defuse volatile custody situations such as this one.