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

appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision awarding the sole custody of the child to the mother. Here, the appellate court looked at the factors before it reached its decision. First of all, regarding the age and of child, the child was only 5 years which means he was able to tell his wishes. regarding the wishes of parents, both of them wanted to acquire a sole custody of him; regarding the interaction and interrelationship, the evaluator appointed by the court suggested that the father was providing equal patring if not more, however, the court did not agree with the conclusion of evaluator’s opinion and held the mother was the primary caretaker of the child according to the evidence presented as well as the testimonies given. Furthermore, the court looked at the the child’s adjustment to his home, and held that he could quickly adapt to a new environment due to the fact that he was only five years old. Finally, regarding the mental and physical health, court decided that both the father and the mother were dysfunctional. As a result of examining these factors, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment , and held that the argument that the trial court’s decision was based on a presumption was denied owing to the fact that the trial court had not created any statement that could be inferred by anyone to favor the mother over the father.
Similarly, In re Marriage of Lang, the father and the mother had the desire to obtain a sole custody of their child who was only five-year-old boy. After filing for divorce, the evidence presented before the trial court showed that the father has many unacceptable characteristics such as being selfish, deceitful, insensitive and others. Moreover, the evidences revealed that he had not had the desire to have a child. In fact, he allowed to the mother to have the child after she agreed that she would have all the responsibilities related to the child. The father had not taken care of the child and had not had the desire to take care of him until the custodial issue started. The mother has been the only caretaker of the child since he was born. Furthermore, the father went to see the child in the hospital once although the child stayed in the hospital for several days. In addition to that, the father spanked the child with a board before the child celebrated his birthday. The mother was working in Chicago while the father was working in Crawfordsville, Indiana; the child was living with his mother and had the chance to see his father on weekends when his mother returned back, however, the father only spend a little time with the child due to the fact that the father was busy farming. A car accident occurred to the mother while she was driving made her quadriplegic. Consequently, the mother received compensation which led the father to resign from his job; the mother had the clock caregiver to help her with her child. According the evidence presented before the court, the mother was doing great job parting the child. As a result, the trial court held that the sole custody of the child was awarded to the mother; the father intended to move to a different place once the case is over decided to appeal. He argued that the expert was hired suggested that he should be awarded the sole custody ,and the mother was not able to discipline the child owing to the fact that she was quadriplegic. However, The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgement after looking the factors stated by IN Code § 31-17-2-8 as well as approving what the case of Carney states about the ability of quadriplegic patients. According to Carney case, “ Even if it were true, ... that [the handicapped parent] cannot do ‘anything’ for his sons except ‘talk to them and teach them, be a tutor,’ that would not only be ‘enough’ ... it would be the most valuable service a parent can render. Yet his capacity to do so is entirely unrelated to his physical prowess: however limited his bodily strength may be, a handicapped parent is a whole person to the child who needs his affection, sympathy, and wisdom to deal with the problems of growing up.”In re Marriage of Lang, 668 N.E.2d 285 (1996)(quoting In Re Marriage of Carney, 24 Cal. 3d 725, 157 Cal. Rptr. 383, 598 P.2d 36 (1979)).
In contrast, in Clark v Madden, where the father and the mother were seeking a sole custody of their child who was only three-year-old girl, the father who has been blind since he was born and the mother were awarded shared custody of their child.

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

custody.