## Facts

- Victor Benavides was the biological father of V.M. (age 9) and V.B. (age 7) and had assumed a parental role with A.M. (age 11), though he was not A.M.’s biological father or stepfather; all three children were born out of wedlock.
- About seven years before the appeal, the children’s mother agreed to relinquish the children’s care and custody to her father, Phillip Moore, and afterward had very little contact with them.
- Benavides struggled with substance abuse and criminal behavior and was not fit or willing to parent at that time; he also voluntarily relinquished custody of the children to Moore.
- The trial court initially placed the children with Moore under a temporary custody order.
- In November 2001, Moore petitioned to convert the temporary order into a permanent custody order; Benavides did not dispute the request, and the court entered a permanent custody order in Moore’s favor.
- Moore and his wife later moved with the children from Lebanon to Pittsboro. The evidence showed the children were doing well at home and in school, and their mental, emotional, physical, and financial needs were being met in Moore’s household.
- After the move, Benavides filed a petition to modify custody, seeking custody of V.M. and V.B.
- Benavides presented evidence of changed circumstances: he had stopped using drugs and alcohol, attended church, had regular alternate-weekend visitation, paid child support to Moore, and had married and lived with his wife, their biological child, and two stepchildren.
- Following a hearing (December 27, 2002), the trial court denied the requested custody modification (order dated January 21, 2003), continued permanent custody with Moore, and granted Benavides liberal visitation with all three children.
- The trial court cited multiple reasons for continuing Moore’s custody, including Benavides’s prior consent to Moore’s custody, the children’s progress in Moore’s home, the harm of separating V.M. and V.B. from A.M., the value of consistency for the children, and Benavides’s other family responsibilities compared to the Moores’ ability to concentrate on the three children.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Benavides’s petition to modify custody and continuing permanent custody with the maternal grandfather on the ground that doing so was in the children’s best interests.
2. Whether, under Indiana’s parent-versus-third-party framework (including the presumption favoring natural parents), the evidence supported keeping custody with Moore despite Benavides’s improved circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court’s order denying Benavides’s petition to modify custody.
- The court held that custody determinations are committed to the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion or clear error; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.
- Applying the Indiana Supreme Court’s analysis for disputes between a natural parent and a third party (as stated in *In re Guardianship of B.H.*), the court concluded the record supported the trial court’s determination that continued custody with Moore was in the children’s best interests.
- The court accepted the trial court’s findings that the children were thriving in Moore’s care, that separating the siblings would be harmful, and that disrupting an established and successful custodial arrangement was not shown to benefit the children, even though Benavides had made meaningful personal improvements.
- The court also left intact the order granting Benavides liberal visitation.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana recognizes a strong presumption that a child’s welfare is ordinarily served by placement with the natural parent, but that presumption may be overcome in a contest with a third party by clear and convincing evidence.
- In evaluating whether a third party has overcome the presumption, a court may consider facts such as a parent’s voluntary relinquishment or acquiescence in third-party custody, the length and success of the third-party placement, and whether a change would harm the child.
- A parent’s rehabilitation and improved living situation are relevant but do not require a custody change when the trial court finds that the child is doing well where placed and that disrupting the placement would likely be detrimental.
- Preserving sibling relationships is a valid best-interests consideration; a court may treat separation of siblings as a negative factor when the children have been raised together and rely on each other.
- On appeal, custody rulings receive substantial deference; the reviewing court looks for evidentiary support for the findings and whether the findings support the judgment, without reweighing evidence.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Benavides’s modification request because, although he showed significant personal progress, the trial court reasonably found that Moore had carried the clear-and-convincing burden to keep custody: the children had long lived with Moore, were doing well with their needs met, continuity weighed against changing homes, and separating V.M. and V.B. from A.M. would likely harm them; liberal visitation preserved Benavides’s ongoing relationship with the children while maintaining their established home.


In re Paternity of V.M., 790 N.E.2d 1005 (2003)