Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 524

Mother and Father, married in 1985 and divorced in 1994, have three children: Katherine, Elizabeth, and Courtney.
Father petitioned in 2009 to emancipate Courtney; Mother initially contested but later stipulated emancipation by December 10, 2009.
Trial court held hearings in 2009–2010 and issued a March 2010 order addressing emancipation, educational expenses, and related financial matters.
The March 2010 order declared Courtney emancipated as of September 23, 2009 and denied a post-secondary educational expense obligation for Father.
Mother appealed, leading to a Court of Appeals decision that was largely reversed by the supreme court grant for transfer and review on emancipation and educational expenses.
The supreme court remanded for determination of the correct emancipation date and for recalculation of overpaid child support, while affirming most other rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What constitutes emancipation under IC 31-16-6-6(a)(3)?	Oliver argues the trial court erred in findings under (a)(3) and dates.	Hirsch argues (a)(3) does not alone emancipate; requires four-month non-enrollment/education findings.	Emancipation occurs when (a)(3) criteria are met and support ends; remanded for correct emancipation date.
Is Courtney emancipated as of September 23, 2009 or December 10, 2009?	Father sought emancipation date aligned with petition date; Mother conceded December 10, 2009.	Record shows lack of four-month non-enrollment and enrollment ongoing; emancipation date contested.	Remand to determine proper emancipation date and recalculate overpayment.
Should Father be obligated to contribute to Courtney's post-secondary educational expenses?	Courtney’s education expenses should be shared given circumstances and ability to contribute.	Court properly terminated Father’s educational expenses obligation based on evidence of court’s discretion and circumstances.	Court affirms denial of Father’s obligation for post-secondary educational expenses.

Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2002) (emancipation occurrence tied to specific statutory sections and welfare considerations)
Hirsch v. Oliver, 944 N.E.2d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses subsections (a)(3) and (a)(8)(B)-(C) and enrollment/self-support definitions)
Butrum v. Roman, 803 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (defines enrollment for purposes of (a)(3); crucial to interpretive framework)
Connell v. Welty, 725 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (burden on petitioner to prove capacity for self-support under (a)(3))
Thiele v. Thiele, 479 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (factors for continuing educational expense considerations)