In re the Paternity of R.H., Darya L. Hupp v. Adam Salsburey and Carolyn Clay (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Apr 16 2019, 8:43 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR
Darya Hupp APPELLEE-INTERVENOR
Fort Wayne, Indiana George Guido
David C. Pricer
Graly & Guido Law Office, LLC
Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Paternity of R.H. April 16, 2019

Darya L. Hupp, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JP-2110
Appellant-Petitioner,
Appeal from the
v. Adams Circuit Court
The Honorable
Adam Salsburey, Chad E. Kukelhan, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Respondent,
01C01-0609-JP-67
and
Carolyn Clay,
Appellee-Intervenor

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 1 of 16
 Case Summary
[1] Darya L. Hupp (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order suspending her

parenting time and finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support as

ordered and to correct her son’s birth certificate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Adam Salsburey (“Father”) have one child, R.H. (“Child”), who

was born in 2005. Father’s paternity of Child was established by order of the

Allen Circuit Court in 2007. At that time, the court also ordered Mother to

correct Child’s birth certificate to list Father as the father of Child. Because

Child was born in California, the court found that correcting Child’s birth

certificate was Mother’s responsibility.

[3] Two years later, in 2009, Mother informed the court that she desired Child’s

paternal grandmother, Carolyn Clay (“Grandmother”), to serve as Child’s

custodian. After a hearing on Mother’s request, the court ordered custody of

Child be granted to Father. Mother was granted visitation with Child pursuant

to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines “or as the parties may agree.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 55. Shortly after the court issued its order (“2009

Order”), Mother relocated to California. Then, in 2015, Father executed a

medical and educational power of attorney of Child in favor of Grandmother

and her husband, Daniel Clay, and moved out of state. Father has not returned

to Indiana and has had virtually no contact with Child since 2015.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 16
[4] In December 2016, Mother filed a petition to modify custody. Grandmother

was permitted to intervene in the case and requested that Mother’s parenting

time be “restricted and/or limited to that of supervised.” Id. at 52. In January

2017, Father signed an affidavit “for the purpose of showing his complete, full,

and voluntary consent to primary sole physical custody being awarded to

[Grandmother].” Id. at 35. After Mother requested and was granted two

continuances, a hearing was held on April 24. Mother failed to appear and sent

the court a letter explaining that “[t]he emotional traumatic nature of this case

renders me incapable of completing the Interrogatories and any future inquires

or motions that may arise . . . I will be unable to complete the forms that have

been requested of me, and I will be unable to attend the hearing set for April

24.” Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 12. After the hearing, the court issued an order

granting sole legal and physical custody of Child to Grandmother. The order

provides, in relevant part:

3. Shortly after the entry of the [2009 Order], [Mother] moved to
California and has resided there since that time. Since that point
in time, she has only had physical contact with [Child] on one (1)
brief occasion and has chosen to have only nominal phone or
other electronic contact with him. For that matter, [Mother] has
had no contact of any kind with [Child], whether in person,
email, skype, or phone contact since March 31, 2012.

*****

9. [Child’s] Nurse Practitioner, Candace Lemke, of The Bowen
Center in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has advised that it would be in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 3 of 16
 [Child’s] “best interests to remain with [Grandmother] since he
has been there since age 3.”

10. [Child] currently has a learning disability and suffers from
ADHD.

*****

13. After two (2) continuances having been requested by, and
granted to [Mother], this matter was set for a final hearing before
this court on [April 24]. When granting the second continuance,
[Mother] was advised that the court was “granting this LAST
continuance over the objection of counsel and resets the matter to
[April 24] on which day and time this matter will DEFINITELY
be heard.”

14. [Mother] sent a letter to the court acknowledging her
“inability” to complete Interrogatories propounded to her as well
as “any future inquires or motions that might arise,” as well as
her inability to attend the hearing set for [April 24].

15. Having heard sworn testimony, the court orders:

*****

d. For the reasons presented to this court, this court finds
that parenting time between [Mother] and [Child], would
significantly impair [Child’s] emotional development and
well being and, further, might endanger [Child].
Accordingly, parenting time between [Mother] and [Child]
whether in person or by phone, shall be on an agreed upon
basis, with the understanding that [Mother’s] parenting
time shall be restricted. Given that [Mother] has had no
physical contact with [Child] since August of 2009, and no

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 4 of 16
 contact of any kind, electronic or otherwise, since March
31, 2012, [Mother’s] parenting time shall take place in Fort
Wayne, Indiana and shall be supervised, at all times, by
[Grandmother] and/or her husband, Daniel Clay, whether
in person or by phone.

e. [Mother] is, once again, admonished to complete the
necessary paperwork required to have [Child’s] birth
certificate changed to reflect that [Father] is the father of
[Child].

*****

g. [Mother] shall be obligated to pay child support for
[Child] on a nominal basis. [Mother’s] obligation shall be
at the rate of $51 per week.

*****

j. [Grandmother] has incurred attorney fees of
approximately $7,436 with regard to her need to defend,
and respond to [Mother’s court petitions]. . . . The court
finds that [Mother], who initiated these proceedings in the
first place, should be obligated to pay one-half (1/2) of
those attorney fees, or the sum of $3,718.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 56-59. Over six months later, in December 2017,

Mother notified the court that she had permanently relocated back to Indiana

on July 6, 2017, that she had been unemployed since 2015, that she had left her

job “because of religious discrimination,” that she was without income, and

that she was homeless, living in a shelter. Id. at 61.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 5 of 16
[5] In June 2018, Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time. Grandmother

responded by filing an information for contempt and rule to show cause, a

petition for attorney’s fees, and a motion for proceedings supplemental. A

hearing on these motions was held in August 2018. At the hearing, Mother

admitted that she had not corrected Child’s birth certificate, testifying that

“according to the California Department of Health, I have to have a notarized

statement from [Father] that he is [Child’s] biological father.” Tr. p. 6. Mother

said that she sent Father a letter on July 20 asking for a notarized statement, but

that she had not heard back from him. Regarding child support, Mother

testified that she was “not in arrears of any child support.” Id. However,

Grandmother provided evidence showing that Mother “was willfully behind for

a very long time,” was “very sporadic” in child-support payments, and that she

made a “substantial payment to get the support caught up” “in anticipation of

the hearing.” Id. at 21; see also Ex. I-1. Grandmother also presented evidence

that Mother had secured two jobs, one at The Lamp Light and the other at

Generation Home Care and was able to pay her weekly child-support

obligation. Finally, Mother testified that “the reason why” she is seeking to

modify parenting time “is because this is a case of parental alienation.” Tr. p.

11. Mother said that after Child “hung up on [her] on his birthday, [she] sent

him a Hallmark card and [she] told [Child], [‘]you know, sweetie, I can’t talk to

you or visit you just yet until after court, after we get this whole thing situated

because it’s just too toxic.[’]” Id. at 12. Mother testified that her relationship

with Child has “been poisoned” and that she believed Child thinks she “just

abandoned him and never wanted anything to do with him.” Id. Mother
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 6 of 16
 asserted that having unsupervised parenting time with Child would “save [her]

relationship with [Child].” Id. at 11. Mother stated that she blamed

Grandmother for “allowing [Child] to hang up on [her] on his birthday,” and

she introduced evidence showing that she called Grandmother “many, many

times” between May 27 and June 10. Id. at 8.

[6] Grandmother also introduced evidence that Mother called her “many, many

times” between May 27 and June 10. Grandmother’s evidence showed that on

June 3, after Mother had called her numerous times without leaving a phone

number, Mother finally left a message with a return phone number.

Grandmother then called Mother to facilitate a supervised phone visit with

Child. During the conversation, Mother told Child “your grandmother is a liar.

Everything she has told you about me is a lie. She stole you from me.” Id. at

23. Child became upset and asked Mother to “not speak that way about

someone that he loved,” but Mother ignored him and continued calling

Grandmother a liar. Id. When Child began crying, Grandmother ended the

phone visit.

[7] Grandmother then presented evidence that on June 8, she called Mother to set

up a time for Mother to have an in-person visit with Child. See Ex. I-4, I-5.

After some argument, Mother finally agreed to meet for a visit at the Glenbrook

Mall on June 16. See id. However, before the visit occurred, Mother called

Grandmother thirty times “in an hour” on June 10, Child’s birthday. Tr. p. 26.

It was during one of these thirty phone calls that Child told Mother “I don’t

want to talk to you” and hung up on her. Id. at 8. Grandmother then presented

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 7 of 16
 evidence of a police report from June 10, showing that she contacted police

because of Mother’s “incessant, non-stop calls.” Id. at 25; Ex. I-6. The report

showed that when officers spoke with Mother, she admitted that she had called

thirty times within the last hour, “that she will be done for the day, but, will

start back up tomorrow and then the next day and will continue to call to speak

with [Child] every day until she gets to have a conversation with [Child].” Ex.

I-6. The report also stated that Mother informed officers that she intended on

having Grandmother arrested because “she can call [Child] whenever she

wants” and “can talk to [Child] right on the spot.” Tr. p. 26. Despite all of

this, Grandmother provided evidence that she took Child to the Glenbrook

Mall on June 16 and then waited an hour for Mother. Mother “never show[ed]

up,” and when Grandmother and Child got home, a card from Mother had

been delivered. Id. In the card, Mother wrote that she would not be visiting

Child that day because she “can’t have what little [they] have left to be ruined.”

Ex. I-7.

[8] Grandmother’s evidence showed that since “she began caring for [Child] at age

three and a half,” he “has flourished and thrived in” her home. Tr. p. 19.

Grandmother also introduced evidence showing that Mother’s “most recent

behavior since the [hearing on April 24, 2017] has been rather erratic.” Id. at 17.

First, Grandmother introduced a police report showing that on July 17, 2017,

Mother approached a woman’s home, asked the woman to pray with her, and

after the woman refused, began cussing at the woman. The woman called the

police, and Mother told the responding officers that “Jesus spoke to her and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 8 of 16
 told her to go and spread His word and pray with people.” Id. at 22. Next,

Grandmother introduced a second police report showing that on September 17,

2017, Mother went to a church in Fort Wayne with a shaved head and began to

preach to the church. The church asked Mother to leave and called the police.

When officers spoke to Mother, she told them “she was only doing what God

had told her to do.” Id. Grandmother then introduced a third police report

showing that on February 4, 2018, police officers were called to another church

when Mother “went off on a tangent while giving testimony to the

congregation.” Id. This report stated that Mother had a history of causing

problems at churches and “has been trespassed from other churches because of

this.” Id. Finally, Grandmother introduced a fourth police report showing that

on April 8, 2018, police officers were called to a church because Mother was

“screaming and yelling inside the sanctuary.” Id. Furthermore, Grandmother

also introduced a YouTube video that showed Mother shaving her hair then

taking the hair and burning it, while professing “I’m [d]oing this to prove that

I’m not crazy.” Id. at 27; see also Ex. I-10. Based on this evidence,

Grandmother requested, in addition to denying Mother’s petition to modify

parenting time, that the court order Mother to “complete some sort of

psychological evaluation by a counselor or a psychologist” before exercising

any parenting time. Tr. p. 23.

[9] Following the hearing, the court issued an order denying Mother’s petition to

modify parenting time and granting Grandmother’s information for contempt

and rule to show cause and petition for attorney fees. The court also granted

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 9 of 16
Grandmother’s request that Mother undergo psychological evaluation and

counseling before any more parenting time occurs. The order provides, in

relevant part:

3. [Mother] is found in contempt of this Court’s orders as to her
prior non-payment of child support and failure to secure the
corrected birth certificate for [Child].

4. [Grandmother] has incurred attorney fees in having to defend
against [Mother’s] Petition to Modify Parenting Time . . . as well as
her prosecution of her Verified Information for Contempt and Rule to
Show Cause in the amount of $4,190.50.

5. [Mother] is ordered to pay the sum of $4,190.50 to
[Grandmother’s] attorney, Brian E. Stier, within 90 days of the
date of this order.

6. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, [Mother] is
ordered to undergo a complete psychological evaluation with
David Lombard, Psychologist . . . or James Cates, Psychologist .
. . before any further supervised telephonic or in person parenting
time is to occur. [Mother] shall be responsible for the cost and
expense of the psychological evaluation.

7. Further, [Mother] shall, at her expense, enroll and participate
in individual counseling with a board certified psychologist or
licensed therapist. . . . [Mother] shall attend said counseling at a
minimum of one time per week until further Order of this Court.
. . . [Mother’s] participation in counseling is a requirement for
any further supervised telephonic and in person parenting time.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 26-27.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 10 of 16
[10] Mother, pro se, now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
[11] Mother raises two arguments on appeal. She contends that the trial court erred

by suspending her parenting time and by finding her in contempt for failing to

pay child support as ordered and to correct Child’s birth certificate.

I. Suspension of Parenting Time
[12] Mother first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it effectively

suspended her parenting time by ordering her to undergo a psychological

evaluation and participate in individual counseling before any additional

parenting time can occur. Decisions involving parenting-time rights under the

paternity statutes are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. 1 In re

Paternity of W.C., 952 N.E.2d 810, 815 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Reversal is

appropriate only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. at 816. When

reviewing the trial court’s decision, we do not reweigh the evidence or

reexamine the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Indiana has long recognized that

the right of parents to visit their children is a precious privilege that should be

enjoyed by noncustodial parents. Id. Accordingly, a noncustodial parent in a

1
Even though Mother and Grandmother cite the statutes governing parenting-time rights of noncustodial
parents in divorce cases, see Indiana Code ch. 31-17-4, this is a paternity action, see Appellant’s App. p. 2 (first
page of CCS labeling case as “In re: The Paternity of [Child]”). Therefore, the statutes in Indiana Code
chapter 31-14-14 apply to this case. In any event, the controlling provisions in both chapters are nearly
identical. Compare Ind. Code § 31-17-4-1(a) with Ind. Code § 31-14-14-1(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 11 of 16
 paternity action is generally entitled to reasonable parenting-time rights. See

Ind. Code § 31-14-14-1(a). The right of parenting time, however, is

subordinated to the best interests of the child. Id. Indiana Code section 31-14-

14-1, which outlines the parenting time rights of a noncustodial parent in a

paternity action, provides:

(a) A noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time
rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time
might:

(1) endanger the child’s physical health and well-being; or

(2) significantly impair the child’s emotional development.

[13] Indiana Code section 31-14-14-2 provides that “[t]he court may modify an

order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would

serve the best interests of the child.” A party who seeks to restrict parenting-

time rights bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying such a restriction.

In re Paternity of W.C., 952 N.E.2d at 816. The burden of proof is the

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Id.

[14] In April 2017, the court found that parenting time between Mother and Child

would significantly impair Child’s emotional development and well-being and,

further, might endanger Child. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 58. By the

hearing in August 2018, Mother presented no evidence that that had changed.

Here, Child, who has a learning disability and suffers from ADHD, has been

cared for by Grandmother since he was three-and-a-half years old. Mother, on

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 12 of 16
the other hand, has only seen Child once, for one hour, in the past nine years.

The evidence also shows that when Grandmother tries to facilitate parenting

time, Mother becomes argumentative and abrasive, telling Child that

Grandmother is a “liar” and alleging that Grandmother “stole you from me.”

Tr. p. 24. Furthermore, Mother’s thirty calls over a single hour are evidence of

her belief that she can call and speak to Child whenever she wants, despite the

court’s order that parenting time “shall be on an agreed upon basis.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 58. And when Mother did agree to meet

Grandmother to exercise in-person parenting time, Mother did not show up

and, instead, mailed Child a card writing that she cannot talk to Child or visit

Child until after court. Finally, Mother’s actions evidenced by the four police

reports and YouTube video depict erratic behavior. To the extent that Mother

alleges that the court suspended her parenting time “because of her religious

beliefs,” we see no evidence of that. Nonetheless, even without considering any

evidence involving Mother’s religious activities, there is ample evidence to

support the court’s decision. Moreover, to the extent that Mother asserts that

Grandmother is trying to “alienate” Child from her, that does not seem to be

the case. Instead, the evidence shows that Grandmother worked with Mother

to schedule visits and took Child to the mall so that Mother could visit Child in

person, despite Mother’s nonstop calls just days before. Accordingly, we find

no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to suspend Mother’s

parenting time until she completes a psychological evaluation and enrolls in

individual counseling.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 13 of 16
 II. Contempt
[15] Mother next contends that the court erred by finding her in contempt for failing

to pay child support as ordered and to correct Child’s birth certificate. Whether

a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and

we will reverse only if the trial court’s finding is against the logic of the evidence

before it or is contrary to law. Mosser v. Mosser, 729 N.E.2d 197, 199 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2000). To hold a party in contempt for a violation of a court order, the

trial court must find that the party acted with willful disobedience. Piercey v.

Piercey, 727 N.E.2d 26, 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[16] Mother challenges the court’s finding of contempt regarding child support by

stating that “[n]ot only has [she] been paying child support, she was found to be

in no arrears.” Appellant’s Br. p. 17. The purpose of establishing a regular

schedule of support payments is one of “providing regular, uninterrupted

income for the benefit of that parent’s children, who are in the custody of

another,” and in this regard, “[t]he regularity and continuity of court decreed

support payments are as important as the overall dollar amount of those

payments.” In re Marriage of Bradach, 422 N.E.2d 342, 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)

(citing Haycraft v. Haycraft, 375 N.E.2d 252, 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)). A

noncustodial parent is required to make payments in the manner, amount, and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 14 of 16
 at the time required by the support order, at least until such order is modified or

set aside. Haycraft, 375 N.E.2d at 255.2

[17] Here, Mother was ordered to pay $51 per week in child support. The evidence

shows that Mother made “very, very sporadic payment[s] of support” and that

Mother “made a substantial payment to get the [child] support caught up.” Tr.

p. 21. On appeal, Mother does not dispute that she was very sporadic in her

child-support payments or that she made a large one-time payment just before

the hearing. Mother also does not provide any reason why she cannot pay her

weekly child-support obligation of $51 per week with the income she earns from

two jobs. As such, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding

Mother in contempt for failing to pay child support as ordered.

[18] Finally, Mother argues that the court abused its discretion by finding her in

contempt for failing to correct Child’s birth certificate. Specifically, Mother

contends that she “provided proof of a good faith effort to amend” Child’s birth

certificate. Appellant’s Br. p. 17. She did not. In 2007, Mother was ordered to

correct Child’s birth certificate to show that Father was Child’s father. Since

then, Mother obtained what looks like a “Frequently Asked Questions”

2
Mother also argues that the court erred by ordering her to pay attorney’s fees to Grandmother’s attorney.
Mother does not present a cogent argument on this issue. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Nonetheless,
we affirm the trial court’s holding that Mother was in contempt. Once a party is found in contempt, the trial
court has inherent authority to award attorney’s fees as compensation for damages resulting from the other
party’s contemptuous actions. Topoliski v. Topoliski, 742 N.E.2d 991, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), reh’g denied.
Such authority includes the award of attorney’s fees by a party to enforce a child-support order. Id. Because
Mother was found in contempt, the court did not err by awarding attorney’s fees to Grandmother.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 15 of 16
 document from the California Department of Health regarding

acknowledgement of paternity in January 2018 and sent Father a letter

requesting that he sign a notarized statement of paternity in July 2018. See

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 68-79. At the hearing, Mother did not provide any

evidence that she had contacted the California Department of Health and

provided them with the order establishing Father’s paternity or that the

California Department of Health had previously denied a request to correct

Child’s birth certificate. We find that Mother has not made a “good faith

effort” to amend Child’s birth certificate and as such, the court did not abuse its

discretion by finding her in contempt for failing to correct Child’s birth

certificate.

[19] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-2110 | April 16, 2019 Page 16 of 16