Glenn Hatmaker v. Betty Hatmaker
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 589
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Father and Mother married in 2003, separated in 2010, and divorced in 2011; Father was granted only supervised visitation with their child, R.H., pending domestic violence counseling.
- Father’s unemployment income supported an $85 weekly child support obligation while Mother earned $388.60 weekly and incurred child care expenses.
- Father completed counseling and a mental health evaluation; he remained under supervised parenting time through Kids’ Voice.
- On January 8, 2013, Father sought unsupervised parenting time and a potential reduction in child support, arguing loss of Kids’ Voice slots and reduced income.
- At a February 19, 2013 hearing, Mother testified she feared Father, he allegedly contacted her and questioned school staff, and a decapitated rabbit was found at her home.
- The trial court issued a March 4, 2013 order denying Father’s motions and preserving supervised parenting time, which Father challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parenting time restriction was improper | Hatmaker contends restriction eliminates time with R.H. | Hatmaker argues supervision is lawful under the statutes and prior order | Restriction improper; must be lifted or supported by findings |
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying unsupervised time absent danger findings | Hatmaker argues no endangerment findings were made | Mother contends continued supervision is appropriate under statute | Abuse of discretion; remand to authorize unsupervised time or remove restriction |
| Whether child support should be modified due to changed circumstances | Hatmaker shows his income fell while Mother's rose; guideline support should drop | Hatmaker’s signature issues and calculation disputes; deviation allowed if warranted | Abuse of discretion; remand for support ordered per guidelines or justified deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (best interests standard; parenting time decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- D.B. v. M.B.V., 913 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (burden to prove restriction; 'might endanger' interpreted as 'would endanger')
- In re Paternity of W.C., 952 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (preponderance standard for restriction of parenting time)
- Walker v. Nelson, 911 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (remand for proper findings when the record is internally inconsistent)
- Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (best interests on parenting time; affordability considerations may not defeat supervision when harm exists)
- Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (guideline-based approach to child support modification; abuse of discretion standard)