In re Paternity of V.M.

790 N.E.2d 1005 (2003)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Paternity of V.M.

Indiana Court of Appeals
790 N.E.2d 1005 (2003)

Facts

Victor Benavides (plaintiff) was the biological father of V.M. and V.B. and also assumed a parental role with A.M. The children’s mother relinquished care of all three children to her father, Phillip Moore (defendant), and subsequently had almost no contact with them. Benavides, who had problems with substance abuse and criminal behavior, was unfit and unwilling to parent the children and therefore also relinquished custody to Moore. Moore and his wife cared for the children for several years, and Moore eventually petitioned to make the temporary custody order a permanent custody order. Benavides did not object, and the court issued the requested permanent order. The Moores then moved with the children to a new town. The children thrived in their new schools and at home, with their mental, emotional, and financial needs being satisfied. About a year after Moore secured the permanent custody order, Benavides petitioned for a modification, seeking custody of V.M. and V.B. He presented evidence that since originally relinquishing the children to Moore, he had become sober, started attending church, and begun paying child support to Moore and having regular visitation with the children. He was also married and lived with his wife, their daughter, and two stepchildren. The trial court concluded that despite Benavides’s changed circumstances, leaving permanent custody with Moore was in the children’s best interests. The court based its conclusion on its findings that (1) Benavides had previously consented to Moore’s custody; (2) the children were thriving in their environment and having their mental, emotional, and physical needs met; (3) separating V.M. and V.B. from A.M. would be detrimental; (4) stability and consistency were beneficial for the children’s well-being; and (5) Benavides had substantial other commitments to the biological child and two stepchildren he lived with, whereas the Moores could focus their attention on V.M., V.B., and A.M. The court therefore ordered that the children remain in Moore’s custody but with Benavides having liberal visitation. Benavides appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kirsch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership