Richard Sheeley received a favorable decision in a custody matter in which he represented the Father (Plaintiff) of two young children.
The parties were never married. Father has enjoyed primary custody of the two (2) minor children since he filed and concluded his custody application with Attorney Sheeley in 2021. Since that time, Mother has filed numerous motions seeking to alter the orders of the Court and obtain primary physical custody of the minor children, including her seven (7) motions tried to the Court in January of 2026.
Among her claims, Mother alleged Father violated the joint legal custody orders of the Court, that the children’s current school system should be changed to the district in which she resides, and that she should have primary physical custody of the children in the children’s best interests. Mother also sought the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem for the minor children at Father’s sole expense. After earlier argument, the Court declined to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem but instead opted to order other Court services at no cost to either party.
The parties and children participated in a Court-ordered Issue-Focused (Custody) Evaluation undertaken by the Court’s Family Services Division. A Family Relations Counselor investigated the issues defined by Mother’s motions, gathered information, and issued recommendations for the Court’s consideration. However, due to delays caused by Mother’s motions for continuance of previously scheduled hearings, Attorney Sheeley considered the Issue-Focused Evaluation report, though favorable to Father, stale and elected not to present it to the Court nor seek to update the report which would have resulted in further delay.
Following cross-examination of Mother, and without hearing testimony from Father, the Court concluded Mother’s motions were without basis and must be denied. The Court agreed with Father that there was insufficient evidence to support Mother’s claims he violated Court orders, there was no basis for modification of the custody orders of the Court, and six (6) of Mother’s seven (7) motions should be denied with one (1) rendered moot – a conclusion demonstrating Halloran Sage’s ability to make difficult but efficient decisions to protect our clients from protracted proceedings while obtaining the best possible results.