Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana
982 N.E.2d 1010
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Sickels and Kathy Sickels divorced in 1992; Kathy received custody of three children and Sickels was ordered to pay child support.
- By 2001 Sickels faced felony nonsupport charges and an arrest warrant was issued; he had moved to Michigan.
- Michigan did not extradite Sickels to Indiana until July 2010; by then the children were adults and emancipated.
- In 2011 a bench trial convicted Sickels on three counts of felony nonsupport; sentencing directed ten years in CODC and restitution of over $84,000 to Kathy, described as restitution but documented as judgment.
- Court of Appeals sua sponte held Kathy was not the victim entitled to restitution; remanded to reflect restitution only and clarified the ambiguous labeling as restitution rather than civil judgment.
- Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether a custodial parent may be a “victim” for restitution for a child-support arrearage when the children are emancipated; court affirmed the trial court’s restitution to Kathy and remanded to clarify the amount and fix documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a custodial parent may be a victim entitled to restitution for child-support arrearage when the children are emancipated | Sickels argues custodial parent cannot be a victim; arrearage belongs to children | State argues custodial parent may be victim and entitled to arrearage | Yes; custodial parent may be victim; restitution awarded to custodial parent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hambright, 762 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 2002) (arrearages held for children; custodial parent has no individual property interest)
- Hicks v. Smith, 919 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (emancipated children; arrearage presumed payable to custodial parent)
- Moody v. Moody, 565 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (arrearage presumptively to custodial parent for support costs)
- Lizak v. Schultz, 496 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1986) (precedent on custodial parent right to arrearage; no need to prove expenditures in some contexts)
- Myers v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (arrearage calculation; victim determination)