Clark V Madden Summary

The best interest of a child should be achieved when a court determines custody. In Hunsberger v Hunsberger, where both the father and the mother were seeking a sole custody of their child who was five-year-old boy, the father filed for divorce after knowing that his wife was seeing another man, and both of them agreed to have a split custody. After filing for divorce, they continued living together until the mother voluntarily gave possession of the residence to the father. After the factors for custody determination stated by IN Code § 31-17-2-8 were examined, the trial court held that the sole custody was given to the mother. However, the father appealed to the court of appeals claiming that the court abused its discretion. The court of

As a consequence, the father who owned two successful companies decided to appeal. He claimed that the order awarding shared custody was improper because the trial court abused its discretion. Furthermore, none of the parents asked for shared physical custody and the Dissolution of Marriage Act includes solely the right to visit the child for a non-custodial parent, and the findings were supported by evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision after considering the factors stated by IN Code § 31-17-2-8, and finding out that the share physical custody was not forbidden by statute. After reviewing the findings made by the trial court, the appellate court found that the mother had been the primary caretaker of the child ,as well as both of partners made a superb job parting the child. Furthermore, the evaluator appointed by the court suggested that the sole custody of child should be awarded to the father ,and many visitations should be granted to the mother, however, the evaluator confessed the mother would be able to visit the child many times owing to the fact that she would look for a full-time job. In addition to that the court noticed that the father was going to hire caretaker over the mother. Moreover, the detective was hired by the father to watch the mother testified that the mother had not done any inappropriate action with her child as well as another testimony made by a former mother supporting the mother . Finally, the court is not required to follow what the evaluator’s opinions related to the child