Background
Brenden Carrell and Katherine Shockley, formerly Schurman, are the parents of a child born in 2021. Under a 2023 agreed order, they shared joint legal and physical custody on an alternating-week schedule. Mother later married a man who accepted a better-paying, regular-schedule position at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant. In August 2025, she asked to relocate with the child and sought modification of custody and parenting time. Father objected, emphasizing his active parenting role and the established equal schedule.
Mother moved to Pennsylvania before the evidentiary hearing. For several weeks she took the child there during her parenting weeks and returned the child to Indiana for Father’s weeks, until the trial court ordered the child returned and barred removal from the state. At the relocation hearing, Father’s counsel said Mother bore the initial burden to justify the move. The magistrate disagreed, reasoning that Father sought to restrain relocation and therefore bore the burden. After hearing evidence, the court called the decision close but allowed the move, gave Mother primary physical custody, and reduced Father’s parenting time to one weekend per month plus most school breaks and summer.
The written order noted Mother’s remarriage, her new child, and her husband’s Pennsylvania employment, and stated that modification served the child’s best interests. It did not identify the facts or statutory factors supporting that conclusion. The trial court also denied Father’s request for findings because he made it after the oral ruling. Father appealed the absence of findings, the allocation of the relocation burden, and the magistrate’s continued participation.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded on two independent grounds. First, Indiana Code section 31-14-13-7.5 requires a custody order in a paternity case to include the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it is based. That duty applies without a party’s request because Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) requires special findings whenever a statute does. Father therefore did not waive the issue by failing to request findings before evidence was admitted.
The order’s conclusory best-interest statement did not satisfy the statute. A custody modification requires both the child’s best interests and a substantial change in one or more statutory factors. The sparse order did not identify the facts and factors supporting either determination and left the appellate court unable to review the theory of decision. The proper remedy was not outright reversal or a new hearing, but remand for an amended written order with the required findings and conclusions.
Second, the magistrate expressly misallocated the relocation burden. Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-5 creates a two-step framework: the relocating parent first must prove that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason; only then does the burden shift to the nonrelocating parent to prove the move is not in the child’s best interests. The magistrate’s statement that the burden fell on Father overcame the normal presumption that a trial court applied the correct law. Because the written order did not show use of the proper standard, the trial court must reconsider relocation and enter specific findings confirming correct burden allocation. The panel denied disqualification because Father inadequately presented the request and showed legal error, not actual bias or prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Indiana’s special-findings statute independently requires written findings and conclusions for final custody and custody-modification orders in paternity cases; no Trial Rule 52 request is necessary.
- A statement that modification serves the child’s best interests is insufficient unless the order identifies the supporting facts, statutory factors, and substantial change in circumstances.
- The relocating parent bears the initial burden to prove good faith and a legitimate reason; only after that showing does the burden shift to the nonrelocating parent on best interests.
- An erroneous ruling or burden allocation does not alone establish judicial bias or entitle a party to a different judge on remand.
Why It Matters
Carrell supplies Indiana family-law practitioners with a clear checklist for relocation litigation. Proposed orders should separately address the custody-modification requirements, the relocation factors, and both stages of the burden-shifting analysis. Counsel need not make a pre-evidence findings request to preserve the statutory omission, but an express request and a detailed proposed order can reduce the risk of a remand that prolongs uncertainty for the family.
The decision also cautions courts not to confuse who presents evidence first with who carries a statutory burden. Even where both parents testify and the move has an evident employment rationale, the relocating parent must make the threshold showing. A reviewable written order should demonstrate that sequence and explain how the evidence supports each necessary conclusion.