In re the Marriage of: Christopher Neal Maddux v. Suzanne Marie Maddux
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 560
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents divorced in 2005; Mother awarded primary physical custody and parents share legal custody of two sons (then ages 3 and 1). Father has regular parenting time per guidelines.
- From 2011–2014 Mother repeatedly alleged physical abuse by Father; multiple investigations (police, DCS, criminal) resulted in no charges and several unsubstantiated findings. Father missed significant parenting time as a result.
- A CHINS-related custody evaluation (Dr. Lawlor) and the guardian ad litem (Denise Hayden) concluded Mother undermined Father’s relationship with the children; both recommended custody to Father; GAL also recommended supervised contact for Mother and a psychological evaluation.
- Mother repeatedly denied court-ordered parenting time, removed the children from Father’s custody during summer 2012, and left them in care of Maternal Grandfather (who has an old felony child‑molestation conviction). Trial court found Mother in contempt and ordered $20,000 in attorney fees to Father.
- Trial court nonetheless denied Father’s 2013 petition to modify custody to him, concluding that although there was a substantial, continuing change in circumstances, modification was not in the children’s best interests and instead ordered a graduated therapeutic reunification plan; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether findings support denial of Father’s petition to modify primary physical custody | Mother’s pattern of false accusations and repeated denial of parenting time constitutes an egregious, continuing change in circumstances that places the children’s welfare at risk and warrants awarding custody to Father | Although Mother engaged in misconduct, the court can fashion a therapeutic reunification plan without changing custody; a custody change is not required for the children’s best interests | Reversed: trial court’s findings of pervasive harm by Mother are inconsistent with its conclusion that custody change is not in the children’s best interests; remanded to enter judgment granting Father custody and recalculate support |
| Whether trial court properly applied §31‑17‑2‑8 best‑interest factors | Father: court should have given greater weight to children’s emotional harm resulting from Mother’s conduct and GAL/expert recommendations favoring Father | Mother: therapeutic reunification and continuity of residence support maintaining current custody | Court applied factors but its conclusions were internally inconsistent; appellate court reviewed conclusions de novo and found clear error |
| Whether past expert/GAL recommendations can be rejected | Father: GAL and custody evaluator recommended custody to Father; trial court accepted parts (contempt) but rejected custody change contrary to experts | Mother: trial court may decline to adopt expert recommendations and prioritize a reunification plan | Appellate court held the record shows the trial court accepted findings of harm but nonetheless denied custody change — that inconsistency required reversal |
| Child support recalculation amount | Father: trial court miscalculated weekly support; worksheets show $157/week | Mother concedes correct figure is $157/week | Remanded to credit Father for any overpayment; court instructed to correct support to $157/week |
Key Cases Cited
- Arms v. Arms, 803 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (custody modified where custodial parent made unsubstantiated abuse allegations and interfered with visitation, harming child)
- Albright v. Bogue, 736 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (custody modified where custodial parent’s false abuse allegations and interference placed child’s welfare at stake)
- Hanson v. Spolnik, 685 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (parental alienation and unsupported allegations can justify custody modification)
- Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for findings and conclusions under Trial Rule 52(A))
- Clark v. Madden, 725 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (factfinder not required to accept expert opinions on custody)
- Parks v. Delaware Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 862 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (findings must state what the trier of fact determines to be true, not merely recount testimony)