MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 28 2018, 11:06 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Nicholas F. Wallace Patricia L. Martin
Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Martin Law Offices, PC
Fort Wayne, Indiana Angola, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Marriage of Albertson: September 28, 2018
Court of Appeals Case No.
Amanda Albertson, 18A-DR-441
Appellant-Petitioner, Appeal from the Dekalb Circuit
Court
v. The Honorable Kurt Bentley
Grimm, Judge
William Albertson, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Respondent. 17C01-0903-DR-65
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 1 of 13
Case Summary
[1] Amanda Albertson (“Mother”) and William Albertson (“Father”) are the
parents of J.A. and L.A. (collectively, the “Children”). Mother was initially
awarded custody of the Children. However, after Mother made a series of
unsubstantiated allegations of physical and sexual abuse against Father, Father
petitioned for and was granted custody of the Children. Mother was also
ordered to pay $13,125.00 of Father’s attorney’s fees. On appeal, Mother
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the prior custody
order, violated her procedural due process rights by considering certain
evidence, and abused its discretion by ordering her to pay a portion of Father’s
attorney’s fees. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Father were married and are the parents of the Children. Their
divorce was finalized on February 18, 2011. Mother was granted custody of the
Children on February 12, 2012. After receiving custody, Mother and the
Children lived with her parents.
[3] On October 14, 2016, Father was granted expanded, unsupervised parenting
time with the Children. Shortly after Father began exercising his unsupervised
parenting time, Mother began making allegations of physical and sexual abuse
of the Children by Father. All of the allegations were investigated and found to
be unsubstantiated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 2 of 13
[4] In May of 2017, Mother and Father each filed petitions seeking to modify the
existing custody and parenting time orders. The trial court conducted a two-
day hearing on the parties’ petitions on December 14–15, 2017. At the time of
the hearing, J.A. and L.A. were eight and six years old, respectively.
[5] On February 14, 2018, the trial court issued an order modifying custody and
awarding custody of the Children to Father. In its order, the trial court found
that (1) Father “is a fit father”; (2) Mother “is currently an unfit mother and
that she is consciously inflicting on her two boys what is in essence emotional
abuse to suit her own goals and objectives”; (3) “modification of custody is in
the best interests of [the Children] and … that if such modification does not
swiftly transpire irreparable damage will occur, if it has not already, to these
two young boys”; and (4) “parenting time with [Mother], if not carefully
supervised and controlled, would significantly impair the emotional
development” of the Children. Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 33.
Discussion and Decision
[6] On appeal, Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting
Father’s request for a modification of custody and in granting custody to
Father. In making this contention, Mother argues that the evidence does not
support the trial court’s determination that a change of custody was in the
Children’s best interests. Mother also contends that the trial court violated her
procedural due process rights by considering certain evidence. Lastly, Mother
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 3 of 13
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that she pay
$13,125.00 of Father’s attorney’s fees.
I. Modification Order
[7] “We review custody modifications for abuse of discretion with a preference for
granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Kirk
v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002) (internal quotation omitted). Where,
as here, a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon,
Indiana’s appellate courts shall not set aside the findings or
judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given
to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Appellate judges are not to reweigh the evidence nor
reassess witness credibility, and the evidence should be viewed
most favorably to the judgment. Findings are clearly erroneous
only when the record contains no facts to support them either
directly or by inference. Appellate deference to the
determinations of our trial court judges, especially in domestic
relations matters, is warranted because of their unique, direct
interactions with the parties face-to-face, often over an extended
period of time. Thus enabled to assess credibility and character
through both factual testimony and intuitive discernment, our
trial judges are in a superior position to ascertain information and
apply common sense, particularly in the determination of the best
interests of the involved children.
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted).
“Therefore, on appeal it is not enough that the evidence might support some
other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 4 of 13
appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Kirk, 770 N.E.2d at 307 (brackets
and quotation omitted).
[8] Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21(a) provides that a trial court may modify a
child custody order if “(1) the modification is in the best interests of the child;
and (2) there is a substantial change in one (1) or more of the factors that the
court may consider under section 8 … of this chapter.” The factors listed in
Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8 include:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child’s parent or parents;
(B) the child’s sibling; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the
child’s best interests.
(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s:
(A) home;
(B) school; and
(C) community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either
parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto
custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall
consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.
(9) A designation in a power of attorney of:
(A) the child’s parent; or
(B) a person found to be a de facto custodian of the
child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 5 of 13
[9] The trial court found that the evidence presented “demonstrates numerous
substantial changes in the factors identified in [Indiana Code section] 31-17-2-8
as illustrated in the Court’s findings of fact and the evidence presented shows
that a modification of custody in this case would be in the best interests of the
children.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 36. While the trial court did not specify
which factors had substantially changed, we have previously held it was not
necessary for the trial court to do so. See Nienaber v. Marriage of Nienaber, 787
N.E.2d 450, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (noting that we had previously rejected
the argument that the court must specifically identify which of the statutory
factors had substantially changed). As such, we will affirm the trial court’s
order modifying custody so long as the evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion.
[10] The record reveals that Mother has engaged in a pattern of behavior seemingly
aimed at controlling the proceedings in a manner intended to make any
interaction between the Children and Father appear stressful and harmful to the
Children. Court-Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) Lee Marki’s reports
and testimony indicated that Mother would occasionally prod the Children to
make statements about Father which appeared to be coached by Mother or
maternal grandparents. Throughout CASA Marki’s participation in the case,
Mother also displayed a reluctance to allow CASA Marki to speak to the
Children without her present. In addition, the trial court found that Mother
had “done little or nothing to assist” Father in rebuilding a relationship with the
Children and had shown a knowing, willful, intentional, and contemptuous
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 6 of 13
disregard for court orders regarding parenting time. Appellee’s App. Vol. II, p.
17.
[11] During the evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard significant testimony
relating to Mother’s numerous allegations that Father had both physically and
sexually abused the Children. Mother’s allegations were investigated by DCS
“on several occasions and in all cases were deemed unsubstantiated.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 31. In addition, no action was taken after the
allegations were investigated by the State Police and the Steuben County
Sheriff’s Department. While one of Mother’s witnesses indicated that he
believed the allegations simply because they were made, even this witness
testified that he found no physical evidence of the claimed abuse. The trial
court noted that CASA Marki was of the opinion “that the allegations of sexual
abuse have been fabricated by [Mother] with the end goal of alienating Father
from his boys and ultimately removing him altogether from his children’s lives”
and “that Mother’s ongoing allegations of sexual abuse are having a damaging
and traumatic effect upon the emotional development of the [Children.]”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 31.
[12] The trial court also heard evidence that maternal grandmother, with whom
Mother and the Children lived, made negative comments to the Children about
Father prior to their visitation with Father. During one visit, J.A. told Father
that maternal grandmother had told him “that if someone was being mean to
him he was supposed to kick them in the nuts” and that Father “was being
mean.” Father’s Ex. 7, p. 13. During another visit, L.A. indicated that he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 7 of 13
wanted to go home and “didn’t want to see [his] dad anymore” before
admitting that “that’s what my grandma told me to say.” Father’s Ex. 7, p. 16.
During yet another visit, J.A. hit Father with a fist and stated that Father was
being mean and maternal grandmother told him “that he should hit his dad
because he was mean.” Father’s Ex. 7, p. 17. J.A. also said that he did not
want to see Father and was going to run away from him “because Grandma
said.” Father’s Ex. 7, p. 17. CASA Marki indicated that she believed “the
negative and hurtful suggestions the [Children] state they have been given by
[maternal] grandma … have them, especially [J.A.], extremely confused.”
Father’s Ex. 7, p. 31.
[13] The trial court further noted that CASA Marki recommended that “custody be
transferred to [Father] to prevent further emotional damage to the children as
well as their relationship with their Father.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 31.
CASA Marki also recommended that the trial court consider a mental health
evaluation for Mother. The trial court found CASA Marki’s opinions to be
persuasive and correct when considered in light of the evidence coupled with
“the Court’s own observations as to presentment and demeanor of the
witnesses.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 32.
[14] Based on the above-discussed evidence, the trial court found that the allegations
of sexual and physical abuse by Father were false and were the result of
fabrication by Mother. The trial court further found that in fabricating
allegations of sexual abuse of the Children by Father, Mother “has engaged in a
consistent pattern of conduct designed to alienate [Father] from [the Children],
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 8 of 13
and the Court further finds that the conduct of [Mother] is currently
significantly impairing the emotional development of [the Children] and will
continue to do so if there is not intervention to accomplish cessation of the
conduct.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 32. For these reasons, the trial court
concluded that a change in custody was in the Children’s best interests. The
trial court acknowledged that the change in custody would likely have a
temporary negative affect on the Children in that they would have to change
schools, but determined that the short-term negative impact was outweighed by
the Children’s other interests.
[15] Upon review, we conclude that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are
supported by the record. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
granting Father’s request for a modification of custody or in awarding custody
to Father.
II. Procedural Due Process
[16] Mother next contends that the trial court violated her procedural due process
rights by considering reports filed by CASA Marki after the close of the
evidence. Mother’s contention is perplexing because the trial court’s order
explicitly stated that the trial court did not consider the reports in question in
reaching its decision. Specifically, the trial court stated the following:
The Court would note that subsequent to the close of the
evidence the Court received additional Department of Child
Services reports filed by CASA volunteer Lee Marki. These
reports relate to numerous additional claims of sexual abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 9 of 13
being perpetrated by the father against his children. The reports
indicate that all claims as they relate to the father were
unsubstantiated and that the Department of Child Services did
substantiate as against the mother Amanda Albertson for
emotional abuse of her children. The reports indicate that the
Department of Child Services has offered a plan of informal
adjustment to the mother. These reports, while filed with the
court, were not considered by the Court in reaching its decision
as herein announced, and in fact this decision was already in
rough draft form at the time the Court received these reports and
the only impact upon this decision was the addition of this
footnote and the dealing with the subsequent motions generated
by this filing.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 31. Later in its order, the trial court again
reiterated that it “did not consider the CASA filing in question in rendering this
decision.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 39. Given that the trial court’s explicit
statements that it did not consider the reports in question, we conclude that
Mother’s claim is without merit.
III. Attorney’s Fees
[17] In reviewing a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees, we apply an
abuse of discretion standard. A trial court has wide discretion in
awarding attorney’s fees. We will reverse such an award only if
the trial court’s award is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before the court. The trial court may
look at the responsibility of the parties in incurring the attorney’s
fees. Furthermore, the trial judge possesses personal expertise
that he or she may use when determining reasonable attorney’s
fees.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 10 of 13
Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (internal citations
omitted).
[18] In awarding attorney’s fees, the trial court found as follows:
Because the Court has found that the issues presented arose due
to the deliberate fabrication of false accusations against [Father]
by [Mother], designed to thwart and prevent [Father]’s parenting
time with his children, the Court finds that an award of
attorney’s fees is appropriate in this case. [Mother] shall pay to
[Father] the amount of $13,125.00 towards [Father]’s attorney’s
fees in this matter. This attorney fee amount shall be a judgment
as against [Mother] in favor of [Father].
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 38.
[19] The parties filed competing requests for attorney’s fees. Father’s request
indicated that he owed $17,259.88 in fees. Mother’s request indicated that she
owed $39,549.60 in fees. Mother challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s
fees to Father, claiming that the trial court failed to hold a hearing on her ability
to pay.
[20] The Indiana Supreme Court has noted that in determining an award of
attorney’s fees, the trial court shall consider the “resources of the parties, their
respective economic circumstances, and their ability to engage in gainful
employment and earn adequate income.” Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570,
576 n.8 (Ind. 2015). A trial court may also consider factors bearing on
reasonableness including, for example, “which party initiated the action,
whether fees and expenses were incurred due to a party’s misconduct, and the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 11 of 13
ability of the party to pay.” Id. at n.8. Thus, contrary to Mother’s claim, the
trial court could, but was not required to, consider her ability to pay when
entering the award of attorney’s fees for Father. See id. at n.8 (providing that
the trial court “may” consider the ability of a party to pay).
[21] The record reveals that the trial court considered the parties’ economic
circumstances and employment potential. During the hearing, the parties
presented evidence relating to their respective employment and income. The
trial court also considered that most, if not all, of Father’s fees were incurred
because of Mother’s behavior. Again, the trial court noted during the
proceedings that Mother demonstrated a knowing, willful, intentional, and
contemptuous disregard for court orders. The trial court also noted Mother’s
decision to levy numerous false accusations of physical and sexual abuse
against Father, all of which had to be investigated and defended by Father.
Mother’s decision to make these repeated false accusations amounted to
misconduct and necessitated further proceedings. As such, we cannot say that
the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Mother pay $13,125.00 of
Father’s attorney’s fees.
Conclusion
[22] In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the custody
award to grant custody of the Children to Father or in ordering Mother to pay
$13,125.00 of Father’s attorney’s fees. The trial court also did not violate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 12 of 13
Mother’s procedural due process rights as it explicitly stated that it did not
consider the challenged evidence.
[23] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-441 | September 28, 2018 Page 13 of 13