In re the Paternity of Titus A. Gambrel Willa Royal v. Luke Gambrel (mem. dec.)
36A01-1706-JP-1475
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Child (Titus), born 2014, diagnosed with autism and largely nonverbal; parents share joint legal custody with Mother having physical custody per 2016 order; Father awarded unsupervised parenting time under Indiana Guidelines.
- In December 2016 Mother discovered bruises on Child after he had spent the day at Father’s home; Mother did not ask Father about the bruises and instead reported alleged abuse to DCS.
- DCS issued a community safety plan limiting Father to supervised visits with Mother named as monitor; DCS did not interview Father or some witnesses who had care of Child the relevant evening.
- Father filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging Mother violated the 2016 parenting time order by blocking his court-ordered visits; Mother filed to modify parenting time to supervised visits per the DCS plan.
- At the combined hearing the FCM testified DCS lacked evidence tying Father to the bruises; Mother admitted she never observed Father being aggressive and conceded her accusation was speculative.
- Trial court found Mother in contempt for willfully disobeying the 2016 parenting time order and denied her petition to modify parenting time; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother willfully disobeyed the 2016 parenting-time order (contempt) | Mother relied on DCS safety plan and feared DCS reprisal; she characterized her conduct as compliance with safety plan | Father argued Mother blocked court-ordered visits contrary to the parenting-time order | Court held Mother willfully disobeyed the order and affirmed contempt finding |
| Whether parenting time should be modified to require supervised visits | Mother argued alleged abuse justified restricting Father’s parenting time per DCS safety plan | Father argued court order controls and DCS had no evidence that Father caused bruises | Court held Mother failed to prove endangerment by preponderance; denied modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt findings)
- Hatmaker v. Hatmaker, 998 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App.) (restriction of parenting time requires showing that it would endanger child)
- Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind.) (appellate treatment where appellee fails to file brief; prima facie error review)