In re the Paternity of M.R.A. and L.R.C.: M.A. v. B.C.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 521
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (Caldwell) and Father (Ayers) entered a written, court‑approved agreement on January 3, 2013 (approved Jan. 16, 2013) resolving paternity, joint legal and physical custody, a parenting schedule, deviation from guideline child support to $0 based on equal parenting time and Father’s agreement to pay uninsured medical, educational and daycare costs, and tax allocation for dependents.
- The 2013 order was entered after testimony and signatures by both parties and their counsel; the court approved the agreement without indicating it was provisional and the case was marked disposed.
- Disputes later arose; parties filed petitions for modification. At a July 3, 2014 hearing the trial court treated the 2013 order as a provisional order and made a new, final determination on custody, parenting time (changed to a 2‑2‑3 schedule), child support, arrearage dating to Jan. 1, 2012, reimbursement of child care expenses, and awarded Mother $19,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Father appealed, challenging (1) the court’s treatment of the 2013 order as provisional and its resulting child support order (including arrearage and daycare reimbursement) and (2) the attorney’s‑fee award.
- The Court of Appeals held the 2013 order was a final, full agreement and that the trial court erred by applying an initial‑support standard (rather than the modification standard) when imposing retrospective child support and arrearage; it reversed the child support and childcare expense rulings and remanded for proceedings under the proper modification standard, but affirmed the attorney’s‑fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Jan. 16, 2013 order provisional or final? | Mother: 2013 order was a final, court‑approved agreement resolving custody/support/parenting time. | Father: Trial court may revisit as provisional; later hearing was proper to determine initial matters. | The 2013 order was a final, enforceable approval of the parties’ agreement, not provisional. |
| Did the trial court properly order child support retroactive to Jan 1, 2012? | Mother: Trial court may set support back to birth/separation when making an initial support order. | Father: Any change from the 2013 order is a modification and requires showing of changed circumstances; modification standard applies. | The court erred by applying an initial support standard; child support must be reconsidered under the modification standard and any retroactivity limited accordingly. |
| Were the childcare reimbursement findings supported by evidence? | Mother: She incurred daycare/preschool costs and sought reimbursement for work‑related child care. | Father: He was available to care for children and Mother had limited employment—expenses not reasonable or work‑related. | Reversed: evidence did not show expenses were reasonable or work‑related; reimbursement order was unsupported. |
| Was the attorney’s‑fee award to Mother proper? | Mother: Father has greater resources and his litigation conduct increased her fees; fee award appropriate. | Father: Challenge to amount/award. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion given income disparity, Father’s greater ability to pay, and litigation conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing Rule 52 findings and when judgment is clearly erroneous)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (rulings based on legal error or unsupported evidence are reversible)
- Mosley v. Mosley, 906 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (provisional orders maintain status quo while issues are developed)
- In re Paternity of K.J.L., 725 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (best interests principle applicable in paternity and dissolution proceedings)
- In re Paternity of T.G.T., 803 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court duty to ensure agreements are in children’s best interests when approving)
- Hatmaker v. Hatmaker, 998 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court may limit modification retroactivity to date petition filed)
- A.G.R. ex rel. Conflenti v. Huff, 815 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees in family law cases)