# Rogers v. Rogers

> Indiana Court of Appeals · November 20, 2007 · 876 N.E.2d 1121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726034

## Case

- **Full name:** Gerry Ray ROGERS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Laura Lynn ROGERS, Appellee-Petitioner
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 20, 2007
- **Citations:** 876 N.E.2d 1121; 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 2585; 2007 WL 4106650
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kirsch
- **Judges:** Baker, Bailey, Kirsch
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726034

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that relocation to Texas was in good faith and for a legitimate reason when it would bring the children into closer proximity to mother’s family and would allow mother to obtain better-paying employment

## Opinion text

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
How can depriving children of the presence of their loving and caring father in their daily lives be in their best interests?
My colleagues conclude that Father failed to carry his burden that Mother’s relocation to Texas was not in the best interests of his children without raising or answering this question. To me, it is of paramount importance. These children’s father will not be there to attend their birthday parties, school functions, recitals, concerts, science fail's, athletic contests, and extracurricular events. Their father will not be there for parent-teacher conferences. Their father will not be there to take them to school in the morning or to pick them up in the afternoon. Their father will not be there for them doctor and dentist appointments. Their father will not know their teachers, and he will not know them friends. Their father will not be there as they move into and through adolescence with all of its attendant challenges.
The choice before the trial court and here is not a custody determination between parents who live in different places. Mother said she would not move if the trial court denied it. Rather, the choice is between whether the children should live in the same community as both of their parents or should live with one parent several hundred miles away from their other parent. To me, the better choice is obvious.
The preamble to the Indiana Parenting Guidelines states that the Guidelines “are based on the premise that it is usually in a child’s best interest to have frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with each parent. It is assumed that both parents nurture their child in important ways, significant to the development and well being of the child.” Mother’s move to Texas will make such contact and such nurturing impossible.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726034. Public record. Not legal advice.