In the Paternity of C.L.H., Blake A. Hensley v. Alyssa N. Troesch (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
May 06 2019, 9:06 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Terry A. White Michael H. Hagedorn
Olsen & White, LLP Tell City, Indiana
Evansville, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Paternity of C.L.H., May 6, 2019
Court of Appeals Cause No.
Blake A. Hensley, 18A-JP-3038
Appellant-Respondent, Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court

v. The Honorable William E. Weikert,
Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No. 62C01-1002-
Alyssa N. Troesch, JP-30
Appellee-Petitioner.

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 1 of 25
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Respondent, Blake Hensley (Father), appeals the trial court’s Order

in favor of the Appellee-Petitioner, Alyssa Troesch (Mother), with respect to

parenting time, and the trial court’s finding of contempt.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUES
[3] Father raises three issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Father to

complete eighteen months of drug rehabilitation before seeking

unsupervised parenting time;

(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not finding Mother in

contempt for denying Father parenting time; and

(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Father in

contempt for nonpayment of child support and Mother’s attorney’s fees.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Mother and Father are the biological parents of C.H. (Child), born on August 6,

2009. At the time of the Child’s birth, Mother and Father were not married.

On May 5, 2010, Father’s paternity and child support were established.

Through the same order, Mother was to have sole legal and physical custody of

the Child, subject to Father’s parenting time. Mother later married Jon

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 2 of 25
 Fulkerson (Fulkerson), and the two have a son, G.F., born in 2016. Mother,

Fulkerson, the Child, and the Child’s younger brother, live in Santa Claus,

Indiana.

[5] On July 7, 2014, Father filed a verified petition for modification of custody,

parenting time, and child support. Mother also filed a petition to modify on

July 14, 2014. On February 19, 2015, Mother filed a petition to terminate

Father’s parenting time, arguing that Father had mental health and drug

addictions issues. On March 17, 2015, Father responded by filing an

emergency verified petition for modification of custody, parenting time, and

child support. In that petition, Father disclosed that he was “entering an 8 to

10-month drug rehabilitation program at the House of Hope, Brazil, Indiana.”

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 20).

[6] On June 23, 2015, Father filed a contempt petition against Mother, alleging that

Mother had refused to allow him to exercise parenting time. On August 19,

2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on Father’s contempt petition but

denied the petition. However, the trial court temporarily ordered that

beginning August 21, 2015, Father was to exercise supervised parenting time

every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:30 p.m.

Paternal grandmother (Grandmother) or paternal aunt (Aunt) were to supervise

the visits. Also, the trial court’s order directed Father to submit to random drug

testing and to continue attending Alcoholics Anonymous, or Narcotics

Anonymous, and verify his attendance at those meetings. Additionally, Father

was ordered to notify the trial court within forty-five days that he was enrolled

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 3 of 25
 in counseling. The trial court then set a final hearing for all the parties’ pending

motions for March 2016.

[7] After several continuances, on May 12, 2016, the trial court began hearing

evidence on the parties’ pending motions. A final hearing was conducted on

June 3, 2016. The trial court then took the matter under advisement. In the

interim, the trial court ordered Father to submit a hair-follicle drug test through

the Dubois County Probation Department, and the trial court reserved ruling

on Father’s request to take the Child on a family vacation until it received the

results of the hair-follicle drug screen. On June 23, 2016, the trial court denied

Father’s request to take the Child on vacation. Six days later, on June 29, 2016,

the trial court issued the following order:

Since taking this matter under advisement, the [c]ourt has
received several recent drug tests from March 10, 2016, April 4,
2016, April 18, 2016, May 24, 2016, and June 3, 2016, all of
which are positive for THC. Considering this new evidence, the
[c]ourt will make no ruling on this case without further
testimony.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 10).

[8] On August 22, 2016, following a pretrial conference, the trial court requested

the appointed Guardian ad litem, Susan Elaine Umpleby (GAL Umpleby), to

“re-open her case and submit an Amended Report” prior to the next hearing on

October 5, 2016. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 10). After several continuances,

on December 1, 2016, the parties and GAL Umpleby appeared in court. The

trial court then entered an order continuing Father’s parenting time schedule of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 4 of 25
 every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m., with

Grandmother or Aunt supervising the visits. On March 30, 2017, Father filed

yet another contempt petition against Mother, arguing that Mother was

violating the parenting time order.

[9] On June 27, 2017, Father reverted to using drugs, broke into his sister’s house,

and was charged with Level 6 felony residential entry. Father spent several

days in jail following his arrest. On July 14, 2017, the parties appeared in court

for Father’s petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support filed

on July 7, 2014; Mother’s petition to modify filed on July 14, 2014; and

Father’s contempt petition against Mother for parenting time filed on March

30, 2017. By agreement, Mother and Father resolved that Father’s visits with

the Child would be restricted to daytime and would be supervised due to

Father’s drug addiction. The trial court then took the matter under advisement,

and it later issued the following order:

3. [] Father’s parenting time shall be restricted and supervised as
follows:

a. Every other weekend on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until
7:00 p.m. and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.

b. One (1) mid-week visit for three (3) hours from 4:30
p.m. until 7:30 p.m.;

c. All scheduled special days and holidays for ten (10)
hours;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 5 of 25
 d. All parenting time must be primarily supervised by
[Grandmother], or if [Grandmother] is unavailable then by
. . . [Aunt], or [other members of Father’s family].

****

g. [] Father’s parenting time shall be supervised and
restricted until he is able to satisfy the [c]ourt that he has
rehabilitated himself from his drug addiction by
undergoing regular drug testing for a period of no less than
eighteen (18) months at his sole cost and expense. Said
testing shall consist of weekly drug urine tests and a hair
follicle testing once every seventy (70) days with the first
urine test to start on July 21, 2017[,] and each week
thereafter and the first hair follicle test to start on
September 14, 2017[,] and every seventy (70) days
thereafter . . . .

h. If each and every hair follicle test and drug urine tests
have been negative and not diluted after nine (9) months of
the Father’s rehabilitation program, [] Father shall then be
allowed to begin supervised parenting time pursuant to the
Indiana [Parenting Time] Guidelines . . . including
overnight visits.

****

j. After the eighteen (18) month rehabilitation period has
been successfully completed, [] Father may petition the
[c]ourt for unsupervised parenting time with the [] [C]hild
pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

****

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 6 of 25
 6. [] Father shall pay child support in the amount of Sixty-Seven
Dollars ($67.00) per week beginning on Friday, July 21, 2017[,]
and shall continue each Friday thereafter for ninety (90) days. []
Father shall then begin paying child support in the amount of
One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per week plus an additional
Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per week toward the arrearage amount
of $460.05 as July 14, 2017. The aforesaid child support
obligation has been calculated in accordance with the Child
Support Guidelines Worksheet filed herewith . . .

****

9. The Parties are ordered to equally divide the GAL fees due in
the sum of $4,470.00. As of June 1, 2017[,] that remaining
balance owed is $575.00. [] Mother is responsible for $340.00
and the Father is responsible for $235.00 of the remaining
balance owed.

10. [] Father is ordered to pay $2,000.00 of the Mother’s attorney
fees in this matter to her attorney within six (6) months from July
27, 2017.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 28-30)

[10] On September 16, 2017, an Indiana State Police officer initiated a traffic stop

due to Father’s outstanding warrant from Warrick County. Instead of stopping,

Father, who was under the influence of methamphetamine and marijuana and

had a passenger in his vehicle, involved the police in a high-speed chase for

“thirty-five plus minutes.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 27). Father rear-ended and then

rammed the passenger door of the police vehicle to avoid apprehension. Father

then drove his vehicle off the highway, through a campsite, and into a soybean

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 7 of 25
 field. Father ultimately left his vehicle and ran into the Ohio river. The police

did not pursue Father into the water, and after Father swam back to the river

bank, the police tased Father three times to apprehend him.

[11] On the same day, the State charged Father with two Level 6 felonies for

resisting law enforcement committed with a deadly weapon, three Level 6

felonies for criminal recklessness committed with a deadly weapon, one Class A

misdemeanor for operating while intoxicated endangering a person, three Class

A misdemeanors for resisting law enforcement, and one Class B misdemeanor

for reckless driving causing damage to property. Pursuant to a plea agreement,

Father pleaded guilty to two Level 6 felonies and two Class A misdemeanors.

A judgment of conviction was entered with respect to those charges, and the

trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years to be served in

community corrections. While Father was released after nine months, Father

continued his sentence through home detention and probation.

[12] On July 11, 2018, following his release from community corrections, Father

filed a contempt petition against Mother, alleging that Mother was denying him

parenting time. On September 4, 2018, GAL Umpleby filed an updated report.

Father also filed a petition to modify his visitation on September 10, 2018,

arguing that because he was sober from alcohol and drug-free for almost a year,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 8 of 25
 his previously unsupervised overnight parenting schedule of every other

weekend from Friday 6:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:30 p.m. should be reinstated. 1

[13] On September 12, 2018, the trial court conducted a final evidentiary hearing on

the parties’ pending petitions and motions—i.e., Father’s contempt petition

against Mother regarding his parenting time filed on July 11, 2018, and his

motion to modify his parenting time filed September 10, 2018; also, Mother’s

petition to terminate parenting time filed on September 22, 2017, and Mother’s

petition for contempt against Father for non-payment of child support and

attorney fees, which was filed at the start of the evidentiary hearing. A further

hearing was conducted on September 17, 2018. The trial court thereafter took

the matter under advisement and ordered the parties to file their proposed

findings.

[14] On November 21, 2018, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions

thereon. In the Order, the trial court denied Mother’s request to terminate

Father’s parenting time. Citing to the July 14, 2017 Order requiring Father to

undergo eighteen months of rehabilitation and drug screening, the trial court

1
Father’s motion referenced a temporary parenting time order that was entered on March 7, 2016 and
reaffirmed on December 1, 2016. However, that order was moot since it was replaced by the July 14, 2017
Order which altered the parenting time schedule and abolished Father’s overnight parenting time with the
Child.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 9 of 25
 ordered Father to comply with that order beginning November 28, 2018. As to

the parties’ contempt petitions, the trial court declined to find Mother in

contempt for denying Father parenting time; however, it found Father in

contempt for nonpayment of child support and Mother’s attorney fees.

[15] Father now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review

[16] Where, as here, the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), our standard of review is well-settled.

First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second,

whether the findings support the judgment. Kwolek v. Swickard, 944 N.E.2d 564,

570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. In deference to the trial court’s

proximity to the issues, we disturb the judgment only when there is no evidence

supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id. We do

not reweigh the evidence but consider only the evidence favorable to the trial

court’s judgment. Id. Challengers must establish that the trial court’s findings

are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the

record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. Id. However,

while we defer substantially to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions

of law. Id. Additionally, a judgment is erroneous under Indiana Trial Rule 52,

if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Id. We evaluate questions of law de

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 10 of 25
 novo and owe no deference to a trial court’s determination of such questions.

Id.

II. Parenting Time

[17] Decisions involving parenting time rights under the paternity statutes are

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Taylor v. Buehler, 694

N.E.2d 1156, 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied. Reversal is appropriate

only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Id. When reviewing the

trial court’s decision, we neither reweigh the evidence nor reexamine the

credibility of the witnesses. Walker v. Nelson, 911 N.E.2d 124, 130 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2009).

[18] Indiana has long recognized that the right of parents to visit their children is a

precious privilege that should be enjoyed by noncustodial parents. Lasater v.

Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Accordingly, a noncustodial

parent in a 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. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d at 401.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 11 of 25
 (2) significantly impair the child’s emotional development.

[19] Indiana Code section 31-14-14-2 provides, “The court may modify an order

granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve

the best interests of the child.” Even though Indiana Code section 31-14-14-1

uses the term “might,” this court interprets the statute to mean that a court may

not restrict parenting time unless that parenting time would endanger the child’s

physical health or well-being or significantly impair the child’s emotional

development. Walker, 911 N.E.2d at 130. By its plain language, Indiana Code

section 31-14-14-1 requires a court to make a specific finding of physical

endangerment or emotional impairment before placing a restriction on the

noncustodial parent’s parenting time. Id. A party who seeks to restrict

parenting time rights bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying such a

restriction. Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The

burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence standard. In re Paternity of

P.B., 932 N.E.2d 712, 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[20] At the September 12, and 17, 2018, evidentiary hearing, two motions were

litigated. The first one was Father’s motion to modify his parenting time;

however, we note that Father’s motion referenced two orders issued in 2016,

but those orders were moot after the issuance of the July 14, 2017 Order which

ultimately replaced the 2016 orders. The second pleading that was

contemplated was Mother’s petition to terminate Father’s parenting time as

specified in the July 14, 2017 Order.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 12 of 25
[21] Mother argues that in order for Father to have invoked the trial court’s

jurisdiction to eliminate the restrictions on his parenting time under the July 14,

2017 Order, Father was required to file a petition under Indiana Code section

31-14-14-2. Mother continues, “Under this statute [Father] was required to

submit evidence that modification of the July 14, 2017 Order would serve [the

Child’s] best interests. Filing a petition under this statute would also open an

inquiry as to whether the current parenting time restrictions with [the Child]

were essential and necessary to protect [the Child’s] physical health and well-

being; or to prevent significant impairment of his emotional development under

Ind. Code § 31-14-14-1.” (Appellee’s Br. p. 13).

[22] While we agree with Mother that the only substantive pleading pending before

the trial court was Mother’s petition to terminate Father’s parenting time, we

note that at the evidentiary hearing, the parties contested Father’s supervised

parenting time as per the July 14, 2017 Order, thus we find that Father’s claim

is not waived for appellate review. See Dedelow v. Pucalik, 801 N.E.2d 178, 183-

84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[23] In the Order denying Father’s request for unsupervised parenting time and

maintaining the restrictions established by the July 14, 2017 Order, the trial

court entered the following specific findings and conclusions:

12. Following the entry of the July 14, 2017 Order [Father]
exercised the parenting time provided to him pursuant to
paragraphs 3.a. and b. of such Order until his arrest and
subsequent incarceration on September 16, 2017.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 13 of 25
 13. On September 16, 2017 [Father] was arrested and
subsequently prosecuted for numerous felonies and
misdemeanors involving a [high-speed] car chase.

14. Whitney Berry, [Father’s] passenger, was exposed to
substantial risk of bodily injury during the chase and [Father]
reckless and intentional conduct.

15. [Father] was under the influence of methamphetamines and
marijuana while engaged in the foregoing conduct.

16. [Father] entered into a plea agreement in all of the [above-
mentioned] crimes, which were committed in Perry County.

17. [Father] was incarcerated in the Perry County Detention
Center from September 16, 2017 until July 14, 2018.

****

19. The agreement of the parties as entered on July 14, 2017,
contemplated that [Father] would have eighteen (18) months to
prove his sobriety while exercising parenting time as agreed.
[Father] has never complied with the restricted and supervised
patenting time conditions he agreed to as set forth in paragraph
3.a. inclusive of [3.]i. of the July 14, 2017 Order. [Father’s]
voluntary compliance of the restricted and supervised parenting
time was contemplated when the Order was entered. Being sober
and drug-free while incarcerated in the Perry County Detention
Center does not satisfy the restrictions. No visitation took place
during [Father’s] incarceration. Likewise, the terms and
conditions imposed, coercively, through the Perry County
Community Corrections do not satisfy the restricted and
supervised parenting time conditions contained in the July 14,
2017 Order.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 14 of 25
 ****

21. [Father] has spent much of his adult life using illegal
substances, marijuana, opioids, K2 or spice, klonopin, and
heroin.

22. During the past 4 years [Father] has consumed illegal
substances, got high and impaired, got arrested and spent time in
jail, gone to rehab for months at a time, and then repeated the
cycle. [Father] has been in and out of [Child’s] life.

23. [Father] has engaged in a pattern of conduct throughout the
past 4 years intentionally and recklessly endangering the lives of
other people and property. The conduct is not isolated, it is not a
one-time thing. [Child] does not live in a vacuum. He is aware
of [F]ather’s conduct. His relationship with [Father] is
interrupted by arrest and incarceration and rehabilitation.
[Father’s] relationship with [Child] due to his conduct and
inability to control his cravings for illegal substances, is abnormal
and aberrant. Based on the facts hereinabove set forth, the
[c]ourt finds that [Father’s] parenting time with [Child] would
endanger the child’s physical health and well-being or
significantly impair [Child’s] emotional development without
supervision. Provided, however, the [c]ourt is not required to
grant [Mother’s] Petition to Terminate Parenting Time for there
is already a supervised and restricted parenting time order in
place with which [Father] has not complied. As previously
stated the order is a precondition to unsupervised parenting time.

24. This [c]ourt expects and anticipates that [Father] will
complete the eighteen (18) month rehabilitation period set forth
in paragraph 3.j. of the July 14, 2017 Order before he receives
unsupervised parenting time. The framework to unsupervised
parenting time has been established. There is no reason to ignore
the previous Order. [Father’s] Motion to Modify Custody

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 15 of 25
 Visitation is denied. The Motion seeks to modify an Order of
March 7, 2016 reaffirmed in a decision of December 1, 2016.
Those orders are moot and replaced by the July 14, 2017 Order.
The [c]ourt may modify an order granting or denying parenting
time rights whenever the modification would serve the best
interests of the child. I.C. [§] 31-14-14-2.

25. The [c]ourt is reestablishing the agreement of the parties as
reflected in the July 14, 2017 Order. This Order shall be placed
in effect immediately on the date of this Order. Paragraph [3.g.]
of the July 14, 2017 Order is amended as follows: Drug testing
shall consist of weekly drug urine tests and hair follicle testing
once every seventy (70) days, with the first urine test to start on
November 28, 2018, and each week thereafter, and the first hair
follicle test to start on January 28, 2019, and every seventy (70)
days thereafter. []Father shall submit the result of his testing to []
[M]other on demand, and shall allow [] [M]other access to all
testing records.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 23-24).

[24] Turning to the heart of Father’s claim, Father contends that, since he had been

“sober” from alcohol, “and drug-free for a period of one-year at the time of his

September 2018 hearing,” the trial court should have relieved him all the drug

screen and rehabilitation obligations contained in the July 14, 2017 Order.

(Appellant’s Br. p. 11).

[25] Mother argues that to the extent the trial court would be required to engage in

the two-prong analysis required by Indiana Code section 31-14-14-1(a) in

restricting Father’s parenting time, there is ample evidence supporting the trial

court’s Order upholding the restrictions on Father’s parenting time. At the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 16 of 25
 evidentiary hearing, GAL Umpleby testified as to Father’s lengthy battle with

drug addiction since she became involved in the case in 2013 and testified that

the only time Father was “sober” was during the time he was incarcerated. (Tr.

Vol. II, p. 98). When questioned whether it was appropriate for Father to have

unsupervised visits with the Child, GAL Umpleby testified that she was not

comfortable lifting Father’s supervised visits, and her position was summarized

with the statement, “I think we need to see how [Father] does on his own . .

.without the incarceration.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 98).

[26] Father’s contention that he had been sober and drug-free for a period of one

year at the time of the September 2018 evidentiary hearing wholly ignores the

circumstances and context in which the July 14, 2017 Order was fashioned.

The July 14, 2017 Order contemplated voluntary drug rehabilitation, not forced

drug rehabilitation through incarceration. There were no drug screens or

follicle tests administered during Father’s incarceration, and Father admittedly

stated that following his release from community corrections, he had not

undergone any drug screenings. Obviously, Mother did not have access to any

of his medical reports during that time to ensure that Father was not using

drugs.

[27] Here, we find that the evidence supports the trial court’s reestablishment of the

July 14, 2017 Order, which requires Father to undergo drug rehabilitation

before gaining unsupervised visits with the Child. Significantly, the trial court

found that because Father had not addressed his drug addiction issues,

unsupervised visitation was not in the Child’s best interests, and that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 17 of 25
 unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the Child’s emotional and

physical health. Father has not shown that the evidence does not support the

findings or that the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusion to

maintain restrictions to his parenting time. Thus, Father’s contentions that the

trial court abused its discretion by denying him unsupervised parenting time

fails.

III. Contempt

[28] Whether a person is in contempt of a court order is a matter left to the trial

court’s discretion. Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App.

1999), trans. denied. When reviewing a contempt order, we will neither reweigh

the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, and unless after a review of

the entire record we have a firm and definite belief a mistake has been made by

the trial court, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed. Piercey v. Piercey, 727

N.E.2d 26, 31-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “In order to be punished for contempt

of a court’s order, there must be an order commanding the accused to do or

refrain from doing something.” Id. at 32 (citing Adler v. Adler, 713 N.E.2d 348,

354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)). 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.” Id.

[29] Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find Mother

in contempt after Mother willfully and intentionally denied him parenting time,

as per the July 14, 2017 Order. Also, Father argues that he did not willfully

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 18 of 25
 violate the trial court’s Order for failing to pay his child support obligation and

Mother’s attorney’s fees.

A. Parenting Time Refusal

[30] Father’s contempt petition against Mother was filed July 12, 2018 following his

release from incarceration in June 2018. The trial court, however, found that

Mother was not in contempt of court for denying Father parenting time as

stipulated by the July 14, 2017 Order. In a section entitled “Contempt

Proceedings” the trial court issued the following order, in part:

[Mother] did not willfully disobey this [c]ourt’s July 14, 2017
parenting time order considering the evidence and reasonable
inferences. [Mother’s] actions were in response to [Father’s] very
serious criminal conduct; . . . her fear for [Child’s] safety and best
interests; and, the complete absence of any effort on her part to
alienate [Child] from Father. Accordingly, the [c]ourt finds that
[Mother] is not in contempt . . . .

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 25).

[31] In determining whether Mother was in contempt of the parenting time order,

the trial court found GAL Umpleby’s report 2 instructive, and it referenced

2
GAL Umpleby’s report was not included in the record for our review.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 19 of 25
 relative portions as follows: “[Father] was very frustrated upon his release from

incarceration that he was not able to fall back into the parenting time schedule

established by the July 2017 order.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 25). The

report continues

[Mother] believes that this entire situation has been incredibly
unfair to [Child] and that he deserves consistency and a reliable,
dependable father. [Mother] wants to be able to protect [Child].
She does agree there is value in [Child’s] relationship with his
[Father], but she is struggling with how to keep [Child] safe.
[Mother] is not spiteful and maintains no hatred against [Father],
but enough is enough. [Father] has battled addiction [during the
Child’s] entire life. Last September, [Father] was using
methamphetamine and heroin. He was forced into sobriety as a
result of incarceration. [Mother] doesn’t know if it is a genuine
sobriety, as this has been a years-long battle for [Father].

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 25).

[32] At the evidentiary hearing, Mother admitted that she had denied Father

parenting time. When asked to explain her reasons, Mother testified that she

was mostly concerned about the Child’s safety considering Father had

unresolved drug addiction issues. Mother further explained that it was not

Father’s use of “narcotics” or “marijuana,” but it was the “methamphetamine”

use that she found most troubling and she continued, “I feel like [the Child]

should not be in any kind of environment that would expose him to any kind of

harm.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 158).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 20 of 25
[33] When asked if Mother had engaged in any sort of pattern to alienate the Child

from Father, GAL Umpleby stated, the “short answer would be, no.” (Tr. Vol.

II, p. 135). GAL Umpleby then stated that although she felt like Mother was

“being a little overprotective” of the Child, after Father relapsed to using drugs

in June 2017 thereby committing the residential entry offense, and further

relapsed in September 2017 which culminated in multiple criminal offenses by

Father, GAL Umpleby testified that she began to understand Mother’s

reservations. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 135).

[34] At the time of the contempt hearing, Father had not complied with the drug

screens, follicle hair testing, or completed eighteen months of drug therapy as

mandated by the July 14, 2017 Order; rather, Father had been forced into

sobriety because of his incarceration. Mother’s conduct is short of willful

disobedience given the fact that Father had not successfully completed the

mandated drug rehabilitation, and there were no guarantees at that point that

Father was sober from drugs and alcohol. Accordingly, we find that Mother

met her burden of showing that her conduct did not amount to willful

disobedience; therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

B. Father’s Contempt

[35] Based on a child support worksheet, the July 14, 2017 Order required Father to

pay $67 weekly child support beginning July 21, 2017 for 90 days, and then pay

$100 per week plus $20 per week toward the arrearage amount of $460.05 as of

July 14, 2017. Also, the trial court ordered Father to pay $2,000 of Mother’s

attorney fees.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 21 of 25
[36] In the Order finding Father in contempt, the trial court determined that

34. No child support was paid from July 21, 2017 until October
31, 2017. From October 31, 2017 inclusive of September 5, 2018,
$1,990.00 was paid in child support. The child support arrearage
has increased inclusive of September 5, 2018 to $4,041.05. No
payments were made on attorney fees during this time . . . .

35. The evidence and reasonable inferences require a
determination that [Father] willfully disobeyed the child support
order and order requiring payment of attorney fees. [Father]
acknowledged the financial obligations but stated that he did not
have the money to pay and was incarcerated which prevented
him from paying. [Father] did not take any action to suspend or
relieve him of the financial obligations. [Father’s] intentional
conduct in committing the criminal offenses was of his own
making and does not constitute a legitimate excuse for
noncompliance with the support order and order requiring
payment of attorney fees. Therefore, the [c]ourt finds that
[Father] is in contempt for not paying child support and the
attorney fee previously ordered. [Father] shall purge himself of
the contempt by paying an additional $50.00 per week on the
arrearage of $4,041.05 beginning on the first Friday following the
entry of this Order and continuing until the arrearage is paid in
full; and by paying Federal and State income tax refunds received
on the arrearage until it is paid in full.

36. [Father] is also ordered to pay $2,000.00 of [Mother’s]
attorney fees as previously ordered. Said attorney fees shall be
paid in full within six (6) months from the filing of this order.

37. In the event [Father] fails to purge himself of his contempt,
the [c]ourt reserves jurisdiction over the contempt finding and
judgment to issue further coercive orders.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 22 of 25
[37] Indiana courts have long held that, “after support obligations have accrued, a

court may not retroactively reduce or eliminate such obligations.” Whited v.

Whited, 859 N.E.2d 657, 661 (Ind. 2007). Father’s contention on appeal is that

the trial court should have suspended him from his child support and Mother’s

attorney’s fees obligation after he was incarcerated in September 2017.

[38] In Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176, 1179 (Ind. 2007), our supreme court

specifically rejected the idea that child support should be completely suspended

while a parent is incarcerated, concluding that

[a]dopting a system that considers incarceration an absolute
justification for the reduction or suspension of child support
appears inconsistent with the policy embedded in Indiana’s
statutes . . . [W]e cannot imagine that the legislature intended for
incarcerated parents to be granted a full reprieve from their child
support obligations while their children are minors.

[39] The Lambert court also held that an incarcerated parent should not be

considered “voluntarily” unemployed or underemployed under the Child

Support Guidelines. Id. at 1180. Although criminal activity reflects a

“voluntary choice,” it is “not quite the same” as voluntarily refusing to work

because “[t]he choice to commit a crime is so far removed from the decision to

avoid child support obligations that it is inappropriate to consider them as

identical.” Id. “[I]mposing impossibly high support payments on incarcerated

parents acts like a punitive measure and does an injustice to the best interests of

the child by ignoring factors that can, and frequently do, severely damage the

parent-child relationship.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 23 of 25
[40] Although the Lambert court dealt with the initial setting of the incarcerated

parent’s child support obligation, in Clark v. Clark, 902 N.E.2d 813, 817 (Ind.

2009), our supreme court relied on the reasoning of Lambert to hold that

incarceration may serve as a changed circumstance so substantial and

continuing as to make the terms of an existing support order unreasonable,

thereby justifying modification of the support order. As in Lambert, the Clark

court held that “a support obligation should be set based on the obligated

parent’s actual earnings while incarcerated (and other assets available to the

incarcerated person).” Id.

[41] Father’s argument that his child support and attorney’s fees obligation should

have been suspended due to his incarceration is clearly incompatible with

Lambert. Moreover, if Father wished to have had his child support and

Mother’s attorney’s fees obligation as per the July 14, 2017 Order modified due

to his incarceration, as per Clark, he should have filed a petition to modify his

child support. For whatever reason, Father did not file such a petition.

Accordingly, we find that Father’s failure to pay his child support and Mother’s

attorney’s fees, was a willful violation of a court order. As such, we conclude

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Father in contempt.

CONCLUSION
[42] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by ordering Father to complete eighteen months of drug

rehabilitation before receiving unsupervised parenting time with the Child.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 24 of 25
 Also, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding

Mother was not in contempt for denying Father parenting time, or for finding

Father in contempt for nonpayment of child support and Mother’s attorney’s

fees.

[43] Affirmed.

[44] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JP-3038 | May 6, 2019 Page 25 of 25