An Indiana father who lost his $350,000-a-year job after 26 years and moved to Virginia for new employment has lost his appeal against a court decision giving his former wife sole legal custody and primary physical custody of their son.
asserted
who → lose → son
Scotty G Nabors challenged the custody arrangement and an order requiring him to pay $4,000 towards his ex-wife's legal fees.
asserted
Nabors → challenge → fees
However, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld both decisions on Thursday, finding that the changes were supported by evidence and were in the child's best interests.
asserted
changes → uphold → interests
Nabors and his former wife, Jill A Nabors, divorced in December 2024, according to the details mentioned in the
ruling.
uncertain
Nabors → divorce → ruling
At the time, both lived in Bartholomew County, Indiana, and agreed to share responsibility for their son, who was born in July 2014.
asserted
who → live → July
Their arrangement allowed the child to spend alternating weeks with each parent.
asserted
child → allow → parent
That arrangement became difficult to maintain after both parents decided to relocate in 2025.
asserted
parents → become → 2025
Scotty moved to Virginia after finding another job, while Jill moved to Fairmount, Indiana, to live closer to her family.
asserted
Jill → move → family
The distance between their new homes meant the existing weekly custody arrangement was no longer practical.
asserted
arrangement → mean → homes
The dispute eventually reached the courts, with both parents seeking changes to custody.
asserted
parents → reach → custody
Scotty wanted his son to move with him to Virginia, while Jill argued that the child should remain in Indiana.
asserted
child → want → Indiana
How Scotty's job loss led him to Virginia
Scotty had worked for Cummins for 26 years before losing his job in March 2025.
asserted
Scotty → lead → March
At the time of his termination, he earned approximately $350,000 annually, excluding bonuses.
asserted
he → earn → bonuses
The couple disagreed over why he had lost his job.
asserted
he → disagree → job
Scotty claimed Jill had sent photographs to his employer that made it appear he was drinking at work.
asserted
he → claim → work
Jill maintained that his drinking had caused his dismissal.
asserted
drinking → maintain → dismissal
During court proceedings, Scotty acknowledged previously consuming 1.75 litres of Jack Daniel's whiskey every one to two weeks.
asserted
Scotty → acknowledge → whiskey
However, he said his drinking had decreased and denied consuming alcohol while working.
asserted
drinking → say → alcohol
After receiving a severance package, Scotty initially remained in Indiana and searched for employment.
asserted
Scotty → receive → employment
Unable to find a comparable position, he accepted a job with American Woodmark Corporation in Virginia, earning approximately $280,000 annually without bonuses.
asserted
he → find → bonuses
He moved to Stephens City in August 2025 and purchased a four-bedroom house with his new wife.
asserted
He → move → wife
The property included a separate bedroom for his son, and Scotty told the court that the neighbourhood offered good schools and activities for children.
asserted
neighbourhood → include → children
Meanwhile, Jill had moved to Fairmount with her new husband, whom she married in February 2025.
asserted
she → move → February
Child's schooling influenced the decision
Following her move, Jill enrolled her son at Park Elementary School without Scotty's consent.
asserted
Jill → influence → consent
Court records showed that the child had adjusted well to the new school, made friends and received all A grades and one B-minus during his first semester.
asserted
child → show → semester
The child also enjoyed living at his mother's property and continued meeting a close friend from Columbus approximately once a month.
asserted
child → enjoy → Columbus
Although Scotty believed his son's academic performance had declined, Jill disputed this.
asserted
Jill → believe → this
The trial court found that the child was doing well in his new surroundings and saw no reason to move him away from his school and friends.
asserted
child → find → school
The court also examined the parents' strained relationship.
asserted
court → examine → relationship
Evidence showed that both had behaved poorly towards each other, sometimes in their son's presence.
asserted
both → show → presence
In one incident in May 2025, Scotty took the child out of school without informing Jill or the school.
uncertain
Scotty → take → Jill
When Jill could not contact him, she requested a police welfare check.
uncertain
she → contact → check
Scotty later acknowledged that failing to notify the school was his mistake.
asserted
failing → acknowledge → school
In March 2026, the trial court awarded Jill sole legal custody and primary physical custody, while allowing Scotty parenting time under a revised arrangement.
asserted
court → award → arrangement
Why appeals court upheld custody and legal fees
Scotty challenged the decision, arguing that the court had focused too heavily on his behaviour while giving insufficient attention to Jill's actions.
asserted
court → uphold → actions
He also raised concerns about her new husband's previous battery conviction and requested a more structured schedule for telephone and video contact with his son.
asserted
He → raise → son
The appeals court rejected his arguments, finding that the lower court had considered the child's relationships, schooling, living arrangements and the parents' inability to communicate respectfully.
asserted
court → reject → relationships
It also upheld the $4,000 legal-fee award.
asserted
It → uphold → award
Scotty earned approximately $5,384 weekly, compared with Jill's $825, and the judges found that this income difference supported the order.
asserted
difference → earn → order
The court therefore concluded that the custody changes were justified by the parents' relocation and the child's circumstances.
asserted
changes → conclude → relocation
The Aporia
