David Hooker v. Shari Hooker
15 N.E.3d 1103
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- David Hooker and Shari Hooker divorced in 2010; the decree ordered David (incarcerated since 2007, earliest release 2035) to pay $8/week child support for two minor children.
- In 2013 the State filed a petition to modify David’s support after David requested a review; notice was served but neither party attended the October 14, 2013 hearing.
- The trial court reduced David’s weekly support to $1/week with an additional $3/week toward accrued arrearage, stating support would revert to $8/week upon his release.
- David filed an objection and request for rehearing; the trial court denied it. He appealed, arguing (1) the reduction ignored his income and needs and misapplied fees, and (2) his due process rights were violated because the court did not secure his presence at the hearing.
- The State relied on the Child Support Guidelines and on David’s minimal incarcerated income; the court noted statutory mandatory clerk fees and that arrearages cannot be reduced retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by reducing support to $1/week + $3/week to arrearage | David: court failed to consider his actual income, needs, and alleged $155 fee, so reduction was improper | State: Guidelines allow modification to reflect incarcerated obligor's actual earnings and needs; minimal obligation appropriate; clerk fee is $55 and cannot be deducted | Affirmed. Court found reduction to an absolute minimum permissible; arrearage must be satisfied and clerk fee is mandatory $55, not deductible |
| Whether trial court violated due process by not transporting/ securing David for the hearing | David: denial of transport or other means to participate violated his due process right to defend | State: David had notice but did not request transport or alternative participation (video/phone/guardian ad litem/documentary submission) | Affirmed. No due process violation because David never requested transport or alternative means to participate |
Key Cases Cited
- Holtzleiter v. Holtzleiter, 944 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for child support modification is abuse of discretion)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (deference to trial court based on first‑hand observation and family disruption concerns)
- Clark v. Clark, 902 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. 2009) (support for incarcerated obligor set based on actual earnings and assets practically available)
- Whited v. Whited, 589 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 1992) (court lacks power to retroactively reduce accrued child support arrearage)
- Sabo v. Sabo, 812 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (prisoner has no right to a transport order for unrelated civil proceedings)
- Hill v. Duckworth, 679 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (court cannot be compelled to secure incarcerated plaintiff's attendance in unrelated civil matters)
- Murfitt v. Murfitt, 809 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (some alternative means must exist to allow prisoners to prosecute/defend civil claims)
- Zimmerman v. Hanks, 766 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court must consider reasonable alternative methods for prisoner participation if requested)