BRADFORD, Judge.
Appellant-Petitioner H.H. ("Mother") filed a notice of intent to relocate from Bartholomew County to Hawaii with G.A. (the "Child"). Appellee-Respondent A.A. ("Father") objected to the relocation of the Child. The trial court denied Mother's request to relocate with the Child following an evidentiary hearing. Mother appeals. Upon review, we conclude that Mother has shown a good faith and legitimate reason for proposing the relocation, but that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that relocation was not in the Child's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm.
Mother and Father were previously married. They separated in 2005, and subsequently divorced. Mother was pregnant when she and Father separated. The Child was born on January 21, 2006. Father has been exercising parenting time with the Child since the Child was a baby.
In May of 2008, Mother married J.H. Father remarried in December of 2010. Father's wife, K.A., has four children from a previous relationship. She and Father also have two children together.
In light of her desire to move with the Child to Hawaii, Mother filed a Notice of Intent to Relocate on April 18, 2012. Father objected to the relocation. On July 18, 2012, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Mother's request to relocate. Following the conclusion of the July 18, 2012 hearing, the trial court issued an order denying Mother's request to relocate with the Child to Hawaii.
At some point after Mother's first relocation request was denied, J.H. accepted employment in and moved to Hawaii. J.H. subsequently admitted that he had accepted the employment in Hawaii before the hearing on Mother's first relocation request.
On April 22, 2013, Mother filed a second Notice of Intent to Relocate. Mother also filed a request for a change of trial judge. Mother's request was granted, and, on May 6, 2013, the trial court assumed jurisdiction over the instant matter. On May 7, 2013, Father objected to the proposed relocation. On June 28, 2013, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Mother's request to relocate.
At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Father was exercising overnight, holiday, and summer visitation pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Father was employed by a Ray Skillman car dealership in Indianapolis. K.A. was employed by Magic Touch Cleaning Service, cleaning numerous houses in Greenwood. Father and K.A. lived and resided in Martinsville. Mother was employed as a nurse in Columbus. She lived with the Child in Columbus. J.H. was employed as a government contractor working on the Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii. Mother indicated
On July 12, 2013, the trial court entered an order denying Mother's request to relocate. The trial court's order provided that custody of the Child would be granted to Father if Mother chose to relocate to Hawaii. This appeal follows.
Mother contends that the trial court erred in denying her request to relocate to Hawaii with the Child.
Although neither party requested specific findings of facts and conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the trial court made numerous findings regarding whether Mother's relocation request was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose and whether the proposed relocation would be in the Child's best interest. As such, we employ a two-tiered standard of review:
T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779, 783 (Ind.Ct. App.2011) (quoting M.S. v. C.S., 938 N.E.2d 278, 281-82 (Ind.Ct.App.2010)).
Id. at 783-84.
Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(a), "[a] relocating individual must file a notice of the intent to move with the clerk of the court that: (1) issued the custody order or parenting time order; or (2) ... has jurisdiction over the legal proceedings concerning the custody of or parenting time with a child; and send a copy of the notice to any nonrelocating individual."
T.L., 950 N.E.2d at 784.
In determining whether to permit a relocation, the trial court shall take into account the following:
Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1. "The `other factors affecting the best interest of the child' include, by implication, the factors set forth for custody determinations and modifications under Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8.
Mother claims that the trial court erroneously determined that she failed to prove that her relocation request was made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. Specifically, Mother challenges the trial court's determination that her desire to join J.H., who had already moved, in Hawaii did not present a good faith or legitimate reason for relocation of Mother and the Child from Columbus to Hawaii.
As we noted in T.L., our body of case law has not explicitly set forth the meaning of legitimate and good faith reasons in the relocation context. 950 N.E.2d at 787. However, we observed that "it is common in our society that people move to live near family members, for financial reasons, or to obtain or maintain employment." Id. at 787-88. Thus, we inferred that these and similar reasons are what the legislature intended in requiring that relocation be for "legitimate" and "good faith" reasons. Id. at 788. We further noted that, as the relocation statute provides and the Indiana Supreme Court has observed, the resolution of relocation disputes ultimately turns on a judicial determination of the best interests of the child, part two of the two-prong standard. Id. (citing Baxendale, 878 N.E.2d at 1256 n. 5). "If part one, the requirement of a legitimate and good faith reason, posed an inordinately high bar for a relocating parent to meet, it could too often prevent trial courts from reaching part two and appropriately deciding the dispute based on the best interests of the affected child." Id.
In the instant matter, the trial court concluded that Mother failed to demonstrate that her desire to relocate to Hawaii with the Child was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose. In making this determination, the trial court found as follows:
Appellant's App. pp. 15-16.
During the evidentiary hearing, Mother admitted that she had desired to move to Hawaii since she and J.H. had visited Hawaii on their honeymoon. She testified
Again, the resolution of relocation requests ultimately turns on a judicial determination regarding the best interests of the children involved. See T.L., 950 N.E.2d at 788. As such, without determining whether the record supports the trial court's statement that it believed that Mother's request to relocate was not made in good faith and her and J.H.'s desire to move to Hawaii was made out of personal preference as opposed to their stated desire to improve both their and the Child's quality of life, we conclude that Mother's stated reason for her request to relocate to Hawaii with the Child, i.e., to live and create a family life with J.H., was sufficient to prove that her request was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose. See In re the Paternity of X.A.S., 928 N.E.2d 222 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (providing that the father presented a good faith and legitimate reason for the proposed reason for relocation, i.e., he had recently married a member of the U.S. Navy whose ship was docked in California, and he wished to relocate to California to live with his new spouse).
In sum, in light of its finding that Mother proposed relocation in order to live with her husband, J.H., who had already relocated to Hawaii, we conclude that the trial court erred in its conclusion that Mother's proposed relocation was not made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. However, our inquiry does not end there because the trial court also determined that relocation was not in the Child's best interests, a determination which we now examine.
Mother also claims that the trial court erred in determining that the requested relocation was not in the Child's best interests. Specifically, Mother claims that the trial court erroneously determined that relocation was not in the Child's best interests because the trial court did not make a specific finding relating to each of the factors available for consideration under Indiana Code sections 31-17-2.2-1 and 31-17-2-8. We disagree and state that while the trial court is to consider all relevant factors, the trial is not necessarily required to make specific findings on each factor unless requested to do so by the parties. See generally, Baxendale, 878 N.E.2d at 1254 n. 2. (upholding the trial court's denial of the mother's request to relocate despite the fact that the trial court did not make any specific findings because the parties had indicated that they did not believe findings and conclusions were necessary).
In determining that the requested relocation was not in the Child's best interests, the trial court found the following:
Appellant's App. p. 16. The trial court also heard evidence regarding the distance involved in the proposed change of residence; the significant decrease in the regularity with which Father could exercise parenting time; the unlikelihood that the close nature of the relationship between the Child and Father would be preserved if relocation were permitted; the interactions of the Child with her parents, her step-mother, her paternal grandparents, and her step and half-siblings; and the Child's adjustment to her home, school, and the community; and prior attempts by Mother to thwart Father's exercise of parenting time with the Child. The trial court also heard testimony from two separate social workers regarding the Child's best interests.
When reviewing a determination regarding the best interests of a child for relocation purposes, we "view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's decision and defer to the trial court's weighing of the evidence." T.L., 950 N.E.2d at 788-89. The trial court's findings referred to evidence that the Child has adjusted well to and is thriving in her current environment and questions regarding the feasibility of maintaining the Child's close relationship with Father and paternal grandmother. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence in the record. In addition to the evidence relating to the trial court's findings, the trial court heard evidence regarding the other applicable factors relating to the Child's best interests. This evidence also supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation to Hawaii was not in the Child's best interests.
Again, Mother presented evidence that she intended to relocate from Columbus to Hawaii with the Child. It is uncontested by the parties that Hawaii is a very far distance from Father's home in Martinsville. Father testified that he would not be able to afford to travel to Hawaii to visit with the child. In addition, while Mother testified that she was willing to bear the additional costs associated with transportation to and from visits with Father, the trial court expressed concerns about Mother's ability to pay for said expenses in addition to the increased cost of living in Hawaii in light of J.H.'s wages and the uncertainty surrounding Mother's earning capability over the next few years. This evidence supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
The record indicates that at the time of the hearing, Father was exercising visitation with the Child every other weekend. Father also exercised extended parenting time during the holidays and summer months. In addition, Father exercised some mid-week visitation and spoke with the Child each night via the telephone. Should Mother relocate to Hawaii with the Child, Father's visitation would likely be limited to one week over the Christmas holiday and seven weeks during the summer. This would result in a substantial decrease in the regularity of Father's visitation
Mother does not dispute that there would be a significant change in the regularity of Father's visitation with Father and reduction in the time that the Child could physically spend with Father if she were permitted to relocate with the Child to Hawaii. Mother merely argues that Father and the Child could preserve their current close relationship by continuing to communicate on a daily basis via telephone.
The record demonstrates that the Child has a close relationship with Father. The Child spends significant amounts of time with Father and talks to Father every night via telephone. Father expressed concern about the effect that the months-long stretches where Father would not have the ability to physically exercise parenting time with the Child would have on their relationship. The trial court found that uncertainties exist regarding the feasibility of continuing the close relationship with Father if Mother's request to relocate with the Child to Hawaii was granted. The substantial change in the regularity with which the Child could physically spend time with Father, coupled with the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of maintaining a continuing close relationship between the Child and Father supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
The record also demonstrates that in addition to a close bond with her parents and step-father, the Child also has a close bond with her step-mother, step and half-siblings, and her paternal grandparents. The Child's step and half-siblings live with Father and step-mother in Martinsville. Paternal grandparents also live in Martinsville. The Child appears to benefit from each of these relationships as she is a happy, well-adjusted, and thriving child. The record clearly demonstrates that both parents, each step-parent, and paternal grandparents love the Child and have played significant roles in her care and development. It is also undisputed that neither Mother nor Father have any extended family living in Hawaii. This evidence supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
The trial court also heard evidence that the Child had adjusted well and was thriving in her current school and had many friends. This evidence supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
The parties presented conflicting opinions from two different social workers who had met with the Child. Cassie Fox, the social worker chosen by Mother, indicated that she believed that relocation to Hawaii was in the Child's best interests, while Megan Larson, the social worker chosen by Father, indicated that she believed that relocation was not in the Child's best interests. Fox based her determination on her belief that the Child wanted to relocate to Hawaii. Larson based her determination on her belief that the Child had a close relationship with Father and Father's family. The parties concede that the trial court was not bound to follow the recommendation of either social worker. In addition, in considering Fox's and Larson's testimony, the trial court, acting as the trier-of-fact, was free to believe or disbelieve each witness's testimony and to
In addition, while Mother claims that she has never attempted to thwart Father's contact with the Child, the trial court heard evidence to the contrary. The trial court heard evidence that Mother had previously been found in contempt for a prior refusal to allow Father to exercise parenting time with the Child. This evidence supports the trial court's determination that the proposed relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
Based upon our review of the record, the trial court's determination is supported by ample evidence in the record relating to the Child's best interests. Mother's challenge effectively amounts to an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence presented by the parties, an invitation which we decline. See T.L., 950 N.E.2d at 789. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the requested relocation was not in the Child's best interests.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
