In the Matter of the Paternity of T.A., Minor Child By Next Friend, C.B. v. L.A. (mem. dec.), 01A02-1611-JP-2729

Background

Child (b. Sept. 2012) lived primarily with Mother; Father signed paternity affidavit and the parties entered a stipulated joint legal custody and equally shared physical custody order in July 2015.
Mother began dating and then married D.B., a registered sex offender convicted (pleaded guilty) of child molesting; D.B. completed probation and participated in counseling and a safety plan.
Mother planned to move Child to Fort Wayne to live with D.B.; Mother did not inform Father in advance of the marriage or planned relocation.
Father discovered D.B.’s sex-offender status, restricted Mother’s physical custody, and filed a motion to modify custody alleging a substantial change in circumstances and safety concerns.
After a hearing, the trial court granted Father sole custody and imposed restricted parenting time on Mother (no overnights; alternate weekends/holidays; safety-plan compliance). Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in modifying joint custody to award Father sole custody	Modification was improper; parties had agreed that remarriage alone is insufficient and no substantial change existed	Mother’s marriage to and planned cohabitation with a registered sex offender and relocation created substantial change and safety concerns for Child	Court affirmed modification: findings supported substantial change (mother’s marriage/relocation and communication failures) and best interests determination
Whether the trial court properly restricted Mother’s parenting time without explicit findings that visitation would endanger Child’s physical health or impair emotional development	Trial court erred by restricting visitation without the statutorily required specific finding of endangerment or emotional harm	Restriction was necessary due to D.B.’s status and safety concerns; incorporated safety plan mitigates risk	Court found prima facie error: remanded for trial court to either make specific findings supporting the visitation restriction or enter an order without such restrictions
Whether the trial court could rely on safety plan and witness testimony about D.B.	Mother argued evidence and counselor testimony did not justify overnight and other restrictions absent statutory finding	Father relied on D.B.’s conviction, registration, and counsel/probation testimony about risk and the safety plan	Court considered evidence relevant to custody modification but still required statutory findings for parenting-time restrictions
Appellate standard where appellee does not file brief	Not raised by Mother	Father did not file a brief; court may reverse for prima facie error	Court applied less stringent review and concluded Mother proved prima facie error as to visitation findings only

Key Cases Cited

Maser v. Hicks, 809 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court will not develop appellee’s arguments when appellee fails to file brief)
Parkhurst v. Van Winkle, 786 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (definition of prima facie)
Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (deference to trial court in custody matters)
Werner v. Werner, 946 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard in family law)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (custody modification review principles)
Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (party seeking modification bears burden)
In re Paternity of C.S., 964 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for custody modification in paternity actions)
Walker v. Nelson, 911 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (requirement that court make specific findings before restricting visitation)
Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (visitation restriction requires finding of endangerment or emotional impairment)
In re Paternity of V.A.M.C., 768 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory requirement for findings prior to restricting noncustodial parent’s visitation)