9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shelly Bailey v. Lance Baileygreen2 sentences2020Bailey v. Bailey, 7 N.E.3d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 2020Bailey v. Bailey, 7 N.E.3d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 3 | 4 |
Kirk v. Kirkgreen2 sentences2014“There is no presumption favoring either parent . . . and the party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child and there has been a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors[.]” Id. (citing I.C. § 31-17-2-8 & Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002)). 2013There is no presumption favoring either parent, Ind.Code § 31-17-2-8, and the party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child and there has been a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors, Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind.2002). | 2 | 2 |
Ind. Dept. Enviro. Manag. v. Const. Manag.green1 sentence2020See id. [13] A party seeking modification of custody bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child and that there has been a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors. | 1 | 1 |
Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myersgreen1 sentence2015The party seeking modification “bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child and there has been a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors[.]” Wilson, 997 N.E.2d at 340 (internal citation omitted).5 [15] In this case, the record reveals that Father has been the children’s primary custodian since 2006. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Guardianship of B.H.
green
2 sentences2015“Hence, the first statutory requirement is met from the outset” and, “as a practical matter,” the natural parent’s burden of establishing a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors “is no burden at all” or is, at the very least, “minimal.” Id. 2014“Hence, the first statutory requirement is met from the outset” and, “as a practical matter,” the natural parent’s burden of establishing a substantial change in one or more of the enumerated statutory factors “is no burden at all” or is, at the very least, “minimal.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
In Re: the Guardianship of M.N.S. J.L.M. v. M.S.S
green
1 sentence2015This is a correct statement of the law, and in the absence of any indication to the contrary, Mother has failed to establish that the trial court departed from the above by placing the burden of proof on Mother instead of Spradlin. [13] Mother also seems to argue that, even if the trial court applied the correct standard, it abused its discretion in failing to find that she had carried her burden in establishing a substantial change in one of more of the enumerated statutory factors.2 We need not address Mother’s argument further, however, if we conclude that Spradlin produced sufficient evide | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.