15 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lamb v. Wenninggreen2 sentences1995DECISION Indiana Code 31-1-11.5-22 reads in pertinent part as follows: (d) The court may not modify a child eus-tody order unless: (1) it is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors which the court may consider under [Ind.Code 31-1-11.5-21(2) ]. (e) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under [LI.C. 1. (£) The court shall not hear evidence on a matter occurring before the last custody proceeding between the parties unless the matter relates to a change in the factors relating to the best inter 1995DECISION Indiana Code 31-1-11.5-22 reads in pertinent part as follows: (d) The court may not modify a child eus-tody order unless: (1) it is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors which the court may consider under [Ind.Code 31-1-11.5-21(2) ]. (e) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under [LI.C. 1. (£) The court shall not hear evidence on a matter occurring before the last custody proceeding between the parties unless the matter relates to a change in the factors relating to the best inter | 1 | 2 |
Milcherska v. Hoerstmangreen1 sentence2020Milcherska v. Hoerstman, 56 N.E.3d 634, 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). [15] The statute governing modification of child custody states in relevant part: (a) The court may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) the modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 . . . of this chapter. (b) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under section 8 of this chapter. | 1 | 1 |
In Re: The Marriage of Ann (Sutton) Baker v. Milo Suttongreen1 sentence2020Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 . “[A] change in circumstances must be judged in the context of the whole environment, and the effect on the child is what renders a change substantial or inconsequential.” In re Marriage of Sutton, 16 N.E.3d 481, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Paternity of MJMgreen1 sentence2019We have said that “[c]ontinuity and stability in the life of a child is an important component in determining the proper custodial arrangement for a child.” In re Paternity of M.J.M., 766 N.E.2d 1203, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Dustin Lee Jarrell v. Billie Jo Jarrellgreen1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1609-DR-2175 | April 27, 2017 Page 23 of 24 Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 . “[A] change in circumstances must be judged in the context of the whole environment, and the effect on the child is what renders a change substantial or inconsequential.” Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d at 1193 (citation and quotation marks omitted). [28] Mother’s contentions that the dissolution court’s findings and conclusions are not supported by the evidence and/or do not support modification of custody amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence and assess the credibility of | 1 | 1 |
Best v. Bestgreen1 sentence2015See Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 503 (Ind. 2011). [14] Our legislature has defined the circumstances under which a custody order may be modified, providing in relevant part: (a) The court may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) the modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 and, if applicable, section 8.5 of this chapter. (b) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under section 8 of this chapter. | 1 | 1 |
Mundon v. Mundongreen1 sentence2001Prior to 1997, Indiana Code § 31 — 1— 11.5 — 22(d) provided that a trial court could modify child custody “only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the existing custody order unreasonable.” (Emphasis supplied.) We have interpreted the language of the current statute to require “that in addition to finding a substantial change in one of the factors, the trial court may not modify a child custody order unless the modification is- in the best interests of the child, and that in making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under | 1 | 1 |
Palm v. Palmgreen1 sentence1999See also Palm v. Palm, 690 N.E.2d 364, 369 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied (“the trial court must determine both whether a change is in the child’s best interest and whether there has been a substantial change in one or more of the factors which were initially used to determine custody”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Julie C. v. Andrew C.
green
2 sentences2017Id. [10] Our legislature has defined the circumstances under which a custody order may be modified: (a) The court may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) the modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 and, if applicable, section 8.5 of this chapter. (b) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under section 8 of this chapter. 2016Id. [25] Our legislature has defined the circumstances under which a custody order may be modified, providing in relevant part: (a) The Court may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) The modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) There is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 and, if applicable section 8.5 of this chapter. (b) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under section 8 of this chapter. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Collins v. Gilbreath
green
2 sentences2011The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:... (8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter."); Ind.Code § 31-17-2-8.5 ("(a) This section applies only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian. (b) In addition to the factors listed in section 8 of this chapter, the court shall consider the following factors in determining custody: (1) The wishes of the child' 2011I agree with the maternal grandparents that the KJ. court "tacitly abrogated" our holding in Collins v. Gilbreath, 403 N.E.2d 921 , on which the trial court partly relied in granting J.D.'s petition to establish visitation. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
In Re the Marriage of: Amy Steele-Giri v. Brian K. Steele
green
1 sentence2017“Indeed, this ‘more stringent standard’ is required to support a change in custody, as opposed to an initial custody determination where there is no presumption for either parent because ‘permanence and stability are considered best for the welfare and happiness of the child.’” Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 124 (quoting Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96, 98 (Ind. 1992)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Carl Wayne Montgomery v. Patricia Ann Montgomery
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1608-JP-1915| April 25, 2017 Page 8 of 15 (C) any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests. (5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community. (6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. (7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent. (8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 2.5(b) of this chapter. [13] “A parent seeking mo | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myers
green
1 sentence2014“Those factors include: the child’s age and sex; the wishes of the parent(s); the child’s wishes; the relationship the child has with his or her parent(s), sibling(s), and others; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community; the mental and physical health of all involved; any evidence of domestic or family violence; and any evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian.” Wilson, 997 N.E.2d at 340 6 (citing Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 (1)-(8)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Marriage of Snemis
green
1 sentence1998Id. *978 Modification of child custody is governed by Indiana Code § 31-17-2-21, which provides in relevant part: (a) The court may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) the modification is in the best interest of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 of this chapter. (b) In making its determination, the court shall consider the factors listed under section 8 of this chapter. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.