MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 29 2017, 11:10 am
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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Cassandra A. Kruse Elizabeth Eichholtz Walker
Emswiller Williams Noland & Cohen & Malad, LLP
Clarke, PC Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stacey H. Young, December 29, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1707-DR-1478
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
Michael A. Young, The Honorable William
Appellee-Respondent. Greenaway, Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29D04-1308-DR-7339
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 1 of 22
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Petitioner, Stacey H. Young (Mother), appeals the trial court’s denial
of her motion to modify joint legal custody and parenting time of the minor
child, O.Y. (Child), in favor of Appellee-Petitioner, Michael Young (Father).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUES
[3] Mother presents us with five issues on appeal, which we restate as:
(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a guardian ad
litem and allocating the fees to Mother;
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that no
substantial and continuing change of circumstances existed and a
modification of legal custody was not in the Child’s best interest;
(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother’s request
for modification of parenting time;
(4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Mother to
reimburse Father’s work-related childcare costs; and
(5) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Mother to pay
$10,000 of Father’s attorney fees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] Mother and Father were married on August 25, 2007. During their marriage,
one Child was born on July 22, 2009. Mother filed a petition for dissolution of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 2 of 22
marriage on August 8, 2013. On October 14, 2013, the trial court issued a
preliminary order, awarding Mother sole custody of the Child and granting
Father supervised parenting time. In addition, the trial court required Father to
attend anger management counseling and enjoined him from consuming
alcoholic beverages during his parenting time with the Child. The trial court
ordered Father to pay weekly child support in the amount of $267.75, which
included a weekly credit of $199 for work-related childcare expenses which
Mother was responsible for paying. On December 1, 2013, the trial court
allowed Father to commence unsupervised parenting time. On February 26,
2014, the trial court appointed Wendy Clar as the Child’s guardian ad litem
(GAL Clar). GAL Clar submitted her final report to the trial court on
November 10, 2014, in which she recommended that the parties share legal and
physical custody of the Child, with the support of a parenting coordinator.
[5] Following a contested hearing on January 30 and February 2, 2015, the trial
court issued a final decree of dissolution of marriage on April 1, 2015, awarding
Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of the Child, with Father
having extensive parenting time. In addition, the trial court granted Father “the
ultimate right to decide whether [the Child] receive recommended
vaccinations.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 186). Erin Durnell was appointed
as the Parenting Coordinator (PC Durnell), with authority “limited to decisions
regarding [the Child’s] healthcare, including immunizations, medicine, diet,
food, and allergies.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 187). Although the trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 3 of 22
court incorporated a provision for child support, the decree is silent as to any
childcare expenses.
[6] Following the trial court’s award of joint legal custody, on September 24, 2015,
Mother advised Father that she had made an appointment with the Child’s
dentist for a routine check-up. Although Father initially objected to ongoing
treatment with the Child’s dentist because Father could receive less expensive
dental treatments for the Child at the dentist office where his sister was
employed, he allowed the scheduled appointment to proceed. After being seen
by the dentist, it was determined that the Child suffered from severe tooth decay
and required several root canals. The Child’s dentist referred the Child to Dr.
Kira Stockton (Dr. Stockton), a pediatric dentist. On November 12, 2015, Dr.
Stockton performed an operating room procedure to complete all the necessary
dental work in one appointment. In May of 2016, the Child had a routine
appointment with Dr. Stockton and was found to do well with his oral hygiene.
[7] On April 15, 2016, PC Durnell issued her first Binding Recommendation
following her appointment by the trial court. The primary issue mediated by
PC Durnell focused on the Child’s immunizations. As a chiropractor, Mother
“has long been opposed to immunizations.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 69).
“Her professional training and her own experience in directing [the Child’s]
health from his birth have convinced her that immunizing him is not necessary
for maintaining his good health, and that his body is capable of fighting off
disease because he is so health[y].” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 71). Father,
on the other hand, wished for the Child to be vaccinated. Mindful of both
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 4 of 22
parties’ positions, PC Durnell recommended the Child to be immunized on a
delayed schedule, receiving “one (1) injection every four (4) weeks, which is a
deviation from the [Center for Disease and Control’s (CDC)] catch-up
schedule. The parties shall follow [the Child’s pediatrician’s] recommendations
for prioritizing the vaccinations, and shall not argue with [the pediatrician] at
any of [the child’s] appointments about which injection should be given at that
appointment.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 72). Father was responsible for
taking the Child to the immunization appointments, while Mother would be
permitted to attend. After the Child received his second combination vaccine
for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio (DTap) on July 21, 2016, the Child
developed a swelling at the injection side and was hospitalized overnight at IU
North, where he received intravenous antibiotics to treat his reaction.
[8] Father scheduled the child for another DTap vaccination on August 26, 2016.
Mother objected based on the CDC’s recommended catch-up schedule, which
advised a minimum interval of six months between doses of DTap vaccines.
Father instead opted to have the Child vaccinated with the combination vaccine
for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella/chickenpox at the August 26, 2016
appointment, again over Mother’s objection. Although Father subsequently
sought to have the Child injected with the DTap vaccine, he acquiesced against
proceeding forward with the appointment after Mother moved to stay the
immunization in which she detailed the CDC’s recommended guidelines for
delayed vaccinations for the Child’s age. By May 17, 2017, the parties agreed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 5 of 22
that the Child would receive one vaccination when he is eleven and another
when he is seventeen.
[9] In March of 2015, Father was arrested and charged with felony battery resulting
in serious bodily injury for pushing a neighbor into a door and causing injuries.
On October 20, 2016, Father pled guilty and was sentenced to probation for one
year. Following his arrest, Father voluntarily attended clinical psychotherapy
with Dr. Kevin Byrd, a clinical psychologist (Dr. Byrd). Dr. Byrd counseled
Father in anger management and provided guidance with regard to handling
co-parenting situations. Father attended thirteen sessions, after which Dr. Byrd
declared the therapy to be successful as Father “placed a sincere effort into
working on the issues at hand.” (Transcript p. 106).
[10] On April 15, 2016, after discovering Father’s arrest, Mother filed an emergency
motion to modify custody and a motion for a change of judge. On May 2,
2016, a special judge assumed jurisdiction. On June 17, 2016, Mother filed a
request for a final hearing, which the trial court scheduled for August 24, 2016.
On June 30, 2016, Father filed a motion, requesting the trial court to clarify its
prior order with respect to the allocation of work-related childcare expenses and
seeking the reappointment of GAL Clar. Because Mother was concerned about
possible delays to the proceedings due to a late reappointment of GAL Clar,
Mother objected to Father’s motion. The trial court appointed GAL Clar over
Mother’s objection.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 6 of 22
[11] The trial court conducted a hearing on August 24, 2016, November 2, 2016,
and May 17, 2017, respectively. On October 13, 2016, Mother filed a motion
for rule to show cause after Father refused to reimburse her for uninsured
medical expenses in the amount of $1,178.72. On June 8, 2017, the trial court
issued its Order, denying Mother’s motion for modification of custody,
concluding in pertinent part:
35. [] The primary dispute between the parties is the issue of [the
Child’s] vaccinations. Mother objects to vaccinating the [C]hild.
Father has concerns about the [C]hild’s health absent
vaccinations. . . .
36. While Mother has alleged that Father has made custody and
parenting time a battlefield, the [c]ourt believes that Mother’s
position on vaccinations and her views on a holistic way of life
have created a great deal of controversy from which she now
seeks an award of sole legal custody. The [c]ourt is not judging
the wisdom of Mother’s approach to these issues, however, it is
her steadfast adherence to the same that have caused many of the
legal custodial issues between the parties.
37. Mother has rejected the recommendations of the GAL.
Mother has rejected the recommendations of the PC. Mother
has rejected the recommendations of [the Child’s pediatrician], at
times. It appears that Mother has rejected the [c]ourt’s order
from the outset. A petition to modify custody is not a vehicle to
re-litigate initial custody determination as to who might make a
better parent. Mother should not be rewarded for her continued
course of action through a modification of custody in her favor.
It would appear to the [c]ourt that Mother is indeed trying to re-
litigate issues that have already been resolved.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 7 of 22
38. Father provided recent examples of issues resolved between
the parties through communication and cooperation without
involvement of the PC. Specifically, Father and Mother have
been able to resolve (1) the most recent “vaccination dispute” as
put before the [c]ourt in Mother’s second motion to stay and
were able to work together with [the Child’s pediatrician], to
resolve the same much that [the Child] will not receive the DTap
vaccination until he is seventeen years old and that the soonest
he would receive any additional vaccination is age eleven, and
(2) the parties were able to interview and agree upon an
orthodontic provider for [the Child] and begin treatment.
Further, the GAL Report noted several instances where Father
had compromised to resolve an issue.
39. The GAL has recommended that joint legal custody remain
in place. The PC supports an order of joint legal custody. The
GAL was presented with all co-parenting and custody issues and
attended all three days of hearings. The GAL does not believe a
modification of legal or physical custody is warranted or in the
child’s best interest after speaking with the child’s professional
providers [], and after reviewing documentation that related to
Father’s criminal conviction.
40. The [c]ourt finds that the issues presented to the [c]ourt as
the basis to modify custody are best addressed by reappointment
of a PC rather than a modification of custody. While Mother
states that such changes or issues are “substantial and
continuing,” this [c]ourt disagrees.
****
47. Father is a very involved parent. He is informed of various
vaccination and medical issues pertaining to [the Child]. He
testified about his daily routine with [the Child]. He bathes [the
Child] daily and brushes his teeth in the morning and at night.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 8 of 22
He uses his best efforts to serve organic and natural food to [the
Child], when financially able to do so. He discussed the books
he and [the Child] read daily. He testified as to the activities he
and [the Child] enjoy together. [The Child] will be eight years
old in July of 2017. [The Child] has no siblings. Father has only
rescheduled parenting time on approximately five instances since
he began his new position with his current employer in October
of 2015. Those instances were largely requests by Father to
retrieve [the Child] an hour later (or less) at the outset of his
parenting time. Father is not required to regularly travel for
work. During the pendency of this action, Father relocated from
an apartment to a larger permanent residence closer to [the
Child’s] school.
48. The [c]ourt finds credible Father’s report that he is and has
been abstaining from alcohol since May 11, 2016 through the
present date, based on Father’s demeanor, [and] Dr. Byrd’s
comments . . . . The criminal charges brought against Father []
have been resolved without Father being incarcerated and did not
impact the [C]hild as [the Child] was with Mother on the night
when the incident occurred. Father indicates the criminal
conviction and incident thereto were a “wake up call.” Father
appears to take ownership of and responsibility for that instance
and used the same to better himself.
49. Father voluntarily sought psychotherapy treatment with [Dr.
Byrd] at the GAL’s recommendation. Mother declined to do so.
[Dr. Byrd] testified that at the time of the May 17, 2017 hearing,
Father’s treatment was not needed past February of 2017, but
Father chose to continue with two additional sessions. Dr. Byrd
testified that he believed, based upon his treatment of Father, that
Father was committed to treatment and invested in the same.
Dr. Byrd testified that Father had acknowledged his own
shortcomings and used that as an impetus for change in his life.
Contrary to Mother’s assertions, Dr. Byrd does not have
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 9 of 22
concerns for Father’s anger issues more than “the average
person.”
50. This [c]ourt believes that Father is committed to parenting
[the Child] and that it is in [the Child’s] best interest to maintain
the current parenting time schedule. Therefore, the [c]ourt
denies Mother’s request to modify parenting time as Mother has
failed to meet her burden that a modification of parenting time is
in [the Child’s] best interest.
****
55. Father incurred $19,000.00 in attorney fees from April 14,
2016 through the date of the final hearing. Father has incurred a
great deal of attorneys’ fees and PC fees to address the issue of
whether, why, when, what and how the [C]hild will be
vaccinated since April 15, 2016. Mother has routinely sought an
order from the Court to limit Father’s involvement with [the
Child] without success. Mother is not agreeable to the GAL
recommendations and instead seeks an award of sole legal
custody and reduced parenting time for Father. Mother has
failed to meet her burden of proof to warrant the modification
she seeks.
56. Having considered the respective income of the parties, their
overall financial status and the procedure of this case, the [c]ourt
orders Mother to reimburse ten thousand dollars of Father’s
attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating this matter. Absent Father’s
contempt for failing to properly follow the provisions of the
Decree regarding medical expenses the [c]ourt would have
ordered twelve thousand dollars of fees.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 26-27, 29-30, 31).
[12] Mother now appeals. Additional facts are provided as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 10 of 22
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[13] The trial court entered specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon in its
Order denying the modification of custody. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule
52(A), this court will “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.” Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186, 1190
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. 2012)),
trans. denied. Considering only the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s
judgment and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, we will find clear
error only if the evidence, either directly or by inference, fails to support the
findings, or if the findings fail to support the conclusions. Id.
[14] In addition, there is a well-established preference in Indiana “for granting
latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Swadner v.
Swadner, 897 N.E.2d 966, 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “[A]ppellate courts ‘are in
a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the
trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized
their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand
the significance of the evidence.’” D.C., 977 N.E.2d at 956-57 (quoting Kirk v.
Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002)). Our State’s courts have long
emphasized a concern that there be finality in matters concerning child custody.
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1258 (Ind. 2008). “Modification of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 11 of 22
custody is an area committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we
are constrained to neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses.” Joe v. Lebow, 670 N.E.2d 9, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
II. Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
[15] Mother first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing
GAL Clar over her objection. On June 30, 2016, Father requested the re-
appointment of GAL Clar, more than two months after Mother filed her
emergency motion for modification of custody. Mother objected to the re-
appointment, “[g]iven that the final hearing is scheduled on August 24, 2016,
Mother believes that appointing a GAL at this stage will likely delay the final
hearing, as it is unlikely a GAL could have any investigation and report
completed in less than forty-five days.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 82-83).
On July 1, 2016, the trial court appointed GAL Clar over Mother’s objection.
[16] Pursuant to Indiana Code sections 31-17-6-2; -3, it is within a trial court’s
discretion to appoint a GAL, who “shall represent and protect the best interests
of the child,” in a post-dissolution modification procedure. Upon her
appointment, GAL Clar investigated the Child’s circumstances, as well as the
parties’ respective concerns and timely filed a written report with the trial court
prior to the hearing. Neither party moved to continue the hearing, thus no
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 12 of 22
delay occurred. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
re-appointing GAL Clar. 1
III. Modification of Legal Custody
[17] Mother also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her
motion for modification of joint legal custody to sole legal custody, and
maintains that joint legal custody has become a battlefield and the parties are
no longer able and willing to cooperate to advance the Child’s welfare.
[18] As with modifications of physical custody, a trial court may not modify legal
custody unless (1) the modification is in the best interests of the child and (2)
there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors that the court may
consider under Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8 when it originally determines
custody. These factors are enumerated as:
(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
1
In her appellate brief, Mother argues that “it is clear the GAL was operating with some bias in favor of
Father and against Mother.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 17). However, Mother did not include this argument in her
motion objecting to the requested re-appointment of GAL Clar. As a party cannot advance an argument for
the first time on appeal, it is waived for our review. Birkheimer v. Birkheimer, 981 N.E.2d 111, 120 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012), reh’g denied. Similarly, in her statement of issues, Mother contends that the trial court erred
“when it ordered Mother to pay [GAL Clar’s] fees.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 4). Nevertheless, nowhere in the
argument section of her brief does Mother present this court with her “contentions on the issue[], supported
by cogent reasoning.” See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8(a). Accordingly, the issue of GAL Clar’s fees is
waived for our review.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 13 of 22
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[.]
I.C. § 31-17-2-8. In addition, in evaluating if joint legal custody should be
modified, a trial court must consider the factors listed in I.C. § 31-17-2-15:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint
custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and
able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child’s
welfare;
(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) whether the child has established a close and beneficial
relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so; and
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the
home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.
[19] “In the initial custody determination, both parents are presumed equally
entitled to custody, but a petitioner seeking subsequent modification bears the
burden of demonstrating the existing custody should be altered.” Kirk v. Kirk,
770N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002). Custody matters typically turn on factual
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 14 of 22
determinations and will be set aside only if such determinations are clearly
erroneous. Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1257 (Ind. 2008). On appeal, it
is not enough that the evidence might support some other conclusion; rather, it
must positively require the conclusion contended for by appellant before there is
any basis for reversal. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d at 307. Because a change in
circumstances must not only be substantial, as required by the statute, this
change “must be judged in the context of the whole environment[.]” Jarrell, 5
N.E.3d at 1193. Most importantly, “[t]he effect on the child is what renders a
change substantial or inconsequential.” Id.
[20] Reviewing the familial situation since the institution of joint legal custody on
April 1, 2015, Mother advances that there is an “abundance of examples
evidencing the conflict between Mother and Father[.]” (Appellant’s Br. p. 18).
Claiming that “[t]he conflict between Father and Mother is pervasive and not
limited to the sole issue of vaccinations or a conflict regarding a holistic
approach to life” as concluded by the trial court, Mother focuses on the
problems surrounding the Child’s dental care. Specifically, while she wanted
the Child to continue to see his original dentist, Father objected because he
desired the Child to visit the dentist where his sister worked to save costs. The
dispute, which delayed the Child’s dental care, could have been a contributing
factor to the Child’s extensive dental problems.
[21] While we acknowledge the disagreements between the parties, we also notice
an improvement in their relationship over time. Even though the parties
maintain a different lifestyle and initially steadfastly refused to cooperate, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 15 of 22
record now includes examples of issues resolved between the parties through
communication and cooperation without the involvement of PC Durnell. Most
importantly, the record evidenced that the parties were able to resolve
disagreements about the Child’s extracurricular activities and the Child’s most
recent immunization. During the hearing, PC Durnell testified that if the court
would award either parent sole legal custody, “an imbalance of power” would
be created that would intensify “these battlefields[.]” (Tr. p. 99). She advised
that the Child “needs his parents to both be making those decisions for him.”
(Tr. p. 99).
[22] Considering both parents’ viewpoints, GAL Clar opined at the hearing that:
The parties have differences of opinion. I think when [Father]
doesn’t acquiesce [Mother] views it as refusal. I think when
[Mother] does not acquiesce, [Father] views it as her being
difficult. There have been times where [Father] has acquiesced
and didn’t want to, but he did it. . . . I don’t think every single
one or every single thing is necessarily an argument.
(Tr. p. 92). GAL Clar advised the trial court to continue the joint legal custody
arrangement and expressed her hope that the Child get “some peace” to be “a
little normal seven-year old child who grows up and skips and jumps and walks
around[.]” (Tr. p. 80).
[23] Whereas the record clearly supports indications of disagreements and
arguments between the parties—such as reimbursement for haircuts and
expenses, or enrolling the Child in activities and camps—at the same time, it is
silent as to “evidence of fundamental differences in child rearing philosophies,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 16 of 22
religious beliefs, or lifestyles.” Walker v. Walker, 539 N.E.2d 509, 513 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1989). Although the parents have different lifestyles, they have not shown
a disinclination or inability to cooperate in important matters affecting the
welfare or the upbringing of the Child. Rather, we see a positive and gradual
improvement over time in the parties’ willingness to make decisions advancing
their Child’s happiness. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that
Mother failed to carry her burden to establish a substantial and continuing
change of circumstances.
IV. Parenting Time
[24] Next, Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her
request to modify Father’s parenting time such that Father would exercise
parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Pointing to
Father’s use of alcohol, his anger problems, and his recent felony conviction,
Mother seeks to reduce Father’s generous parenting time to parenting time on
alternating weekends with one midweek visit.
[25] Indiana has long recognized that the right of parents to visit their children is a
precious privilege that should be enjoyed by noncustodial parents, and thus a
noncustodial parent is generally entitled to reasonable visitation rights. Duncan
v. Duncan, 843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
Accordingly, when a custodial parent seeks to modify a parenting time order,
the parent must show that the modification would serve the best interests of the
child. I.C. § 31-17-4-2. “However, the court shall not restrict a parent’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 17 of 22
parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting time might
endanger the child’s physical health, or significantly impair the child’s
emotional development.” I.C. § 31-17-4-2.
[26] In its detailed Order, the trial court found Father credible “that he is and has
been abstaining from alcohol since May 11, 2016, through the present date.”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 29). As a credibility determination is within the
trial court’s province, we will not disturb this conclusion. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d at
1190. During the hearing, Father presented evidence that he acknowledged his
anger problems and voluntarily sought counseling. Dr. Byrd, Father’s clinical
psychologist, testified to the nature of the treatment and Father’s successful
discharge thereof. He described Father as “a willing and cooperative client all
the way through . . . [who] placed a sincere effort into working on the issues at
hand.” (Tr. pp. 105-06). Father presented the trial court with evidence
indicating his involvement with his Child’s upbringing. He informed the court
of the Child’s daily schedule when he is in Father’s care and testified as to the
activities they share.
[27] Although Mother reiterates several times that Father’s felony conviction cannot
be viewed in a vacuum, but rather should be considered in the totality of the
evidence as establishing a pattern of anger and violence, we disagree with her
interpretation of the evidence. 2 Rather, the record establishes a clear pattern of
2
In support of her argument, Mother also relies on I.C. § 31-17-2-8.3 which creates a rebuttable presumption
that the trial court “shall order that the noncustodial parent’s parenting time with the child must be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 18 of 22
improvement on Father’s part. Recognizing his anger issues, Father voluntarily
enrolled in counseling, he abstained from alcohol, and is genuinely interested
and involved in the upbringing of the Child. We agree with the trial court that
Mother failed to establish that modification of the current parenting time
arrangement is in the Child’s best interest.
V. Reimbursement of Childcare Costs
[28] The preliminary order issued October 14, 2013, made Mother “responsible for
paying Abacus Child Care Center” and gave her credit for “[w]ork-related
[c]hild [c]are [e]xpense” on the child support worksheet. (Appellant’s App.
Vol. II, pp. 33, 36). The April 1, 2015 dissolution decree was silent as to the
payment of work-related childcare costs. However, the decree included the
provision that “[a]ny issues not resolved specifically herein by this Order shall
be addressed by separate and subsequent Order of this [c]ourt. Pending
subsequent Order, the parties’ [p]reliminary [o]rder as it pertains to all child-
related provisions shall remain in full force and effect.” (Appellant’s App. Vol.
II, pp. 192-93). Father interpreted this provision to mean that the decree
required him and Mother to continue to share work-related childcare expenses
pro rata based on their respective income shares as was occurring through the
child support worksheet credit under the preliminary order. Mother, on the
supervised” if the noncustodial parent has been convicted of a crime involving domestic or family violence
that was witnessed or heard by the noncustodial parent’s child. We find the statute inapplicable as Father
was not convicted of a crime involving domestic or family violence, nor was the incident witnessed or heard
by the Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 19 of 22
other hand, interpreted the decree as requiring each party to provide and pay
their own childcare expense. In its Order, the trial court “clarifie[d] the [decree]
to note that the parties are ordered to divide any and all work-related childcare
costs based upon their respective income shares, with Father paying sixty-five
percent (65%) and Mother paying thirty-five percent (35%).” (Appellant’s App.
Vol. II, p. 24). As such, the trial court ordered Mother to reimburse Father
$623.21 “for past work-related childcare expenses.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II,
p. 24). Mother challenges the trial court’s conclusion, maintaining that it
constitutes an impermissible retroactive modification of the decree.
[29] It is firmly established that “a court that dissolves a marriage retains jurisdiction
to interpret the terms of its decree and decide questions emanating from its
decree pertaining to its enforcement.” Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d 165, 169
(Ind. 2005). “Although a court may not modify a final decree, it may construe
and clarify it in case of uncertainty, in order to sustain the decree, rather than
defeat it; however, an order is not merely a clarification where it makes
substantial changes in the original decree.” Shepherd v. Tackett, 954 N.E.2d 477,
482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[30] Here, the trial court, when faced with the issue of work-related childcare
expenses, interpreted the decree’s provision that “[p]ending subsequent Order,
the parties’ [p]reliminary [o]rder as it pertains to all child-related provisions
shall remain in full force and effect.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 192-93).
This preliminary order, by way of the attached child support worksheet, divided
the childcare expenses pro rata based on the parties’ respective income shares.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 20 of 22
Even though during the preliminary order childcare was provided by Abacus
daycare, whereas it is currently provided by Westfield Washington Schools,
there still remains a child-related expense, which needs to be allocated between
the parties. As the trial court merely clarified its decree and did not institute a
substantial chance, we affirm the trial court’s decision with respect to work-
related childcare expenses. See id.
VI. Attorney Fees
[31] Lastly, Mother challenges the trial court’s Order, requiring her to reimburse
Father’s attorney fees in the amount of $10,000. We review a trial court’s
award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. G.G.B.W. v. S.W., 80 N.E.3d
264, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.
[32] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-17-7-1, a trial court is permitted to
periodically order one parent to pay reasonable attorney fees to the other parent
related to maintaining or defending custody and parenting time proceedings.
To award fees under this statute, a trial court must consider the parties’
resources, their economic condition, their ability to engage in gainful
employment and earn adequate income, and any other factors bearing on the
reasonableness of the award. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 59 N.E.3d 343, 354
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Misconduct that directly results in additional litigation
expenses may properly be taken into account in the trial court’s decision to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 21 of 22
award attorney fees.” Allen v. Proksch, 832 N.E.2d 1080, 1102 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005).
[33] The trial court based its award of Father’s attorney fees on Mother’s litigious
nature, routinely seeking a court order to limit Father’s involvement with the
Child, as well as her resistance to PC Durnell and GAL Clar’s
recommendations. In its calculation of the award, the trial court was guided by
the “respective incomes of the parties, their overall financial status, and the
procedure of this case[.]” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 31). Mindful of the trial
court’s discretion in this area, we cannot say that the court improperly awarded
attorney fees to Father.
CONCLUSION
[34] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court properly (1) appointed the
GAL Clar and allocated her fees to Mother; (2) denied Mother’s request for
modification of joint legal custody; (3) denied Mother’s request for modification
of parenting time; (4) clarified its Order with respect to work-related childcare
expenses; and (5) awarded attorney fees to Father.
[35] Affirmed.
[36] Baker, J. and Brown, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1707-DR-1478 | December 29, 2017 Page 22 of 22
Stacey H. Young v, Michael A. Young (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion