In Re the Marriage of: Amy Steele-Giri v. Brian K. Steele, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 198

Parents (Father Brian Steele; Mother Amy Steele-Giri) share one minor child, J.S.; original divorce custody order (2007) gave primary physical custody to Father and joint legal custody to both parents.
Mother later moved to Oregon after remarriage; Father’s household changed (new work schedule, live-in partner Brenda Guth began full-time work) resulting in J.S. attending before/after-school care frequently.
Mother petitioned to modify custody (seeking transfer to Oregon) and filed a rule to show cause for indirect contempt, alleging Father excluded her from educational decisions and information.
The GAL interviewed parties, reported mixed impressions (not recommending a change but noting concerns about daycare time, bedroom-sharing with Guth’s daughter, and that residential change to Mother was "appealing").
Trial court denied modification and contempt, making findings sua sponte; Court of Appeals reversed (ordered transfer), but the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and reinstated the trial court’s denials.
Supreme Court affirmed because (1) trial court findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous, and (2) trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Father’s conduct non-willful for contempt purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether custody should be modified to award Mother physical custody in Oregon	Steele-Giri: Household changes (Mother now stay-at-home, remarried, child bond with Mother) and problems at Father’s home (daycare overuse, bedroom conflict, academic decline) make modification in J.S.’s best interest	Steele: Stability with Father, close ties to paternal grandparents, Father’s long-term caregiving, and negative impact on parent-child relationship if moved; trial court’s findings support keeping custody	Affirmed trial court: modification not warranted — findings supported by evidence; best-interest analysis favored maintaining custody with Father
Whether Father is guilty of indirect contempt for failing to inform Mother of school/childcare decisions and not enrolling J.S. in summer school	Steele-Giri: Father willfully withheld school records, excluded Mother from decisions, and unilaterally declined summer school enrollment, violating joint legal custody	Steele: Any omissions were not willful; Mother had other access to records (online/through child); communication failures on both sides	Affirmed trial court: no abuse of discretion — evidence supported finding Father’s conduct was not willful, so no contempt

D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing Trial Rule 52(A) findings)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (two-tiered review when trial court issues sua sponte findings)
In re Paternity of Winkler, 725 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (definition of clearly erroneous for factual findings)
In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993) (deference to trial judges in family law)
Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (appellate courts must not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility in custody appeals)
Brickley v. Brickley, 210 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 1965) (trial judge’s advantage in evaluating witnesses)
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (evidence viewed favorably to the judgment in family law appeals)
Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. 1992) (more stringent standard to modify custody to preserve stability)
Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt review; willfulness is critical)
Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (change-in-circumstances judged by effect on child)