Ashley E. Moore v. David A. Nacke (mem. dec.), 27A04-1609-DR-2207

Parents divorced in 2014; two daughters (born 2009, 2011). Mother awarded primary residential custody; parents share joint legal custody.
Dissolution decree set alternating two-week parenting time for Father including four overnights per two-week cycle.
Father petitioned (Nov. 2015) to convert midweek parenting time to additional overnights; Mother filed a competing petition to reduce one overnight.
At hearing the court admitted a recorded phone call in which Mother used abusive language toward Father; the court criticized Mother’s outside-the-courtroom behavior.
The trial court modified the parenting-time schedule (Feb. 3, 2016; clarified Aug. 26, 2016), adjusting weekend pickup/drop times and summer schedule, citing a desire to accommodate Mother’s work schedule and the court’s view that Mother used parenting time as leverage.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to articulate how the modification served the children’s best interests and relied on improper/unsupported bases (Mother’s work schedule and perceived punitive rationale).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by modifying Father’s parenting time	Moore (Mother): modification was improper because court made no finding that change served children’s best interests; modification appears punitive and based on Mother’s work and demeanor	Nacke (Father): modification was supported by evidence (Mother used parenting-time control as leverage) and served children’s best interests	Court of Appeals: Reversed — trial court abused discretion; failed to show modification served children’s best interests and relied on unsupported/impermissible bases

Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (standard of review when trial court enters findings and general judgment)
Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013) (parenting-time decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; best interests paramount)
Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (best-interests standard in custody/parenting-time matters)
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (custody judgments will be set aside only when clearly erroneous)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (modification in child’s best interest must be explicit or implicit in order)
In re Paternity of Snyder, 26 N.E.3d 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (use of Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 factors in best-interest analysis)
Milcherska v. Hoerstman, 56 N.E.3d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (factors in Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 apply to best-interest inquiry)