Monday, October 5, 2009
Parenting Time Restriction, Reduction and Termination
Indiana recognizes that the right of a noncustodial parent to visit his or her children is a “precious privilege.” Duncan v. Duncan. Thus, although a court may modify a parenting time order when the modification would serve the best interests of the child or children, a parent’s visitation rights shall not be restricted unless the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development. Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2.
Even though the statute uses the word “might,” this Court has previously interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the child’s physical health or emotional development. See Stewart v. Stewart, 521 N.E.2d 956, 960 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied. A party who seeks to restrict a parent’s visitation rights bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying such a restriction. Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
On October 2, 2009 the Indiana Court of Appeals visited the issue of Restriction/Reduction/Termination of Parenting Time in a published opinion which found that a Hendricks County Judge had erred in terminating the appellant/father's parenting time with his children.
This case is blogged about by my colleague Ryan Cassman on his blog.
Even though the statute uses the word “might,” this Court has previously interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the child’s physical health or emotional development. See Stewart v. Stewart, 521 N.E.2d 956, 960 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied. A party who seeks to restrict a parent’s visitation rights bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying such a restriction. Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
On October 2, 2009 the Indiana Court of Appeals visited the issue of Restriction/Reduction/Termination of Parenting Time in a published opinion which found that a Hendricks County Judge had erred in terminating the appellant/father's parenting time with his children.
This case is blogged about by my colleague Ryan Cassman on his blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)