An Indiana father lost his $350,000-a-year job after 26 years and moved to Virginia for work; an October 29 court upheld giving his ex-wife sole legal custody of their son and ordering him to pay $4,000 in legal fees
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.Scotty G Nabors challenged the custody arrangement and an order requiring him to pay $4,000 towards his ex-wife’s legal 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.Nabors and his former wife, Jill A Nabors, divorced in December 2024, according to the details mentioned in the ruling. At the time, both lived in Bartholomew County, Indiana, and agreed to share responsibility for their son, who was born in July 2014. Their arrangement allowed the child to spend alternating weeks with each parent.That arrangement became difficult to maintain after both parents decided to relocate in 2025. Scotty moved to Virginia after finding another job, while Jill moved to Fairmount, Indiana, to live closer to her family. The distance between their new homes meant the existing weekly custody arrangement was no longer practical.The dispute eventually reached the courts, with both parents seeking changes to custody. Scotty wanted his son to move with him to Virginia, while Jill argued that the child should remain in 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. At the time of his termination, he earned approximately $350,000 annually, excluding bonuses.The couple disagreed over why he had lost his job. Scotty claimed Jill had sent photographs to his employer that made it appear he was drinking at work. Jill maintained that his drinking had caused his dismissal.During court proceedings, Scotty acknowledged previously consuming 1.75 litres of Jack Daniel’s whiskey every one to two weeks. However, he said his drinking had decreased and denied consuming alcohol while working.After receiving a severance package, Scotty initially remained in Indiana and searched for employment. Unable to find a comparable position, he accepted a job with American Woodmark Corporation in Virginia, earning approximately $280,000 annually without bonuses.He moved to Stephens City in August 2025 and purchased a four-bedroom house with his new 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.Meanwhile, Jill had moved to Fairmount with her new husband, whom she married in February 2025.
Child’s schooling influenced the decision
Following her move, Jill enrolled her son at Park Elementary School without Scotty’s 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.The child also enjoyed living at his mother’s property and continued meeting a close friend from Columbus approximately once a month.Although Scotty believed his son’s academic performance had declined, Jill disputed 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.The court also examined the parents’ strained relationship. Evidence showed that both had behaved poorly towards each other, sometimes in their son’s presence.In one incident in May 2025, Scotty took the child out of school without informing Jill or the school. When Jill could not contact him, she requested a police welfare check. Scotty later acknowledged that failing to notify the school was his mistake.In March 2026, the trial court awarded Jill sole legal custody and primary physical custody, while allowing Scotty parenting time under a revised 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. 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.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.It also upheld the $4,000 legal-fee award. Scotty earned approximately $5,384 weekly, compared with Jill’s $825, and the judges found that this income difference supported the order.The court therefore concluded that the custody changes were justified by the parents’ relocation and the child’s circumstances.
