mews wrote:Yes it sucks for the dad, but once the two sides are physically separated, there has to be a tough decision made.
The custody decision had already happened 2 years prior, and Dad appeared to have ~50/50 or better parenting time built up over those two years. In addition both sides acknowledged that Dad picked up Mom's parenting time when she worked extended shifts, so he had more parenting time than his decree states. Sounds like Dad was filling the primary parent duties while Mom merely retained the "primary" label. Applying a permanent "primary" label on Mom ignores the best interests of the child IMO, and completely ignores the near term status quo that the child has excelled under.
This wasn't a circumstance where Mom was indigent and required to move. In fact the evidence showed that she was "well-employed". The appeals court is also taking on complete faith that Mom can't find a similar position in Indianapolis as there is no reference to evidence of her attempts. I find that hard to believe in a large market like Indianapolis that is loaded with hospitals.
Even if you agree with the appeals court that a child is better off with more $'s and no Dad in his life, take another look at this statement: “it would cause far greater upheaval to tear him away from his primary caregiver – the parent with whom he has lived for nearly a decade”).
This is a Dad that had 50/50 or better parenting time, picked up Mom's parenting time when she worked shifts as a Nurse, and the appeals court has the audacity to insinuate that Dad's house is just where the son visits. He really only lives with Mom. That statement should disgust any Dad reading it.