Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 610
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Charity Lindquist (Mother) and Cory Lindquist (Father) are separated parents with joint custody and Mother has primary physical custody of triplet daughters.
- Mother lived with and later separated from her longtime partner Criswell; he has played a significant role in the children’s lives.
- A 2012 agreement required parenting time per Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines; Mother allegedly denied Father Christmas 2012 time, sending children with Criswell.
- Trial court found Mother in contempt for the Christmas 2012 denial and ordered Criswell’s one-on-one time with the children to be restricted unless Mother is present.
- Evidence showed Criswell supported the children financially and socially, and the children refer to him as “Dad,” though Criswell is not a legal parent.
- Court concluded Criswell’s ongoing relationship with the children should be allowed so long as it does not undermine Father’s parenting time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by restricting Criswell’s contact | Lindquist argues the restriction infringes constitutional rights and overbroadly limits contact. | Lindquist argues guidelines permit consideration of nonparental relationships only insofar as not undermining the parents’ rights. | Restriction too broad; must permit unsupervised time with Criswell if not undermining Father. |
| Whether the order infringes Mother's freedom of association | Lindquist argues the order chills her ability to form relationships with Criswell and otherwise interferes with parenting. | Father contends child-focused interests justify any temporary restrictions to protect Father–child relationship. | Restriction set aside; Mother may associate with Criswell; limit is on children, not on Mother’s rights. |
| Whether the Guidelines were misapplied regarding best interests | Lindquist asserts no evidence that Criswell harmed children; time with Criswell should be allowed per Guidelines. | Court properly weighed best interests and allowed Criswell’s relationship while ensuring Father’s parenting time under Guidelines. | Criswell’s relationship should be allowed so long as it does not interfere with Father’s time under Guidelines. |
| Whether Criswell has any parental rights to visitation | Lindquist asserts Father and Criswell have equal rights only for the Father; Criswell has no parental right. | Criswell has no statutory parental right; nonetheless, nonparental visitation can occur consistent with Guidelines. | Criswell does not have a parental right; case narrowed to nonparental interaction with safeguards for Father’s time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (strong preference for natural parental custody; constitutions protect parental rights)
- Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (parental rights presumed; third parties have limited visitation rights)
- Kitchen v. Kitchen, 953 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (parental rights matter under Fourteenth Amendment; limits on third-party visitation)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 270 Wis.2d 705 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (difference between fit parents and third parties in post-dissolution context)