In the Paternity of J.W. Bailey R. Dailey v. Justin L. Piersimoni, 79 N.E.3d 975

Mother had sole legal and physical custody of Child; Father’s paternity was later established and he had a prior domestic violence conviction.
May 17, 2016 order granted Father limited, supervised parenting time “under the control and supervision” of Community Anti-Violence Alliance Family Ties (Family Ties), with therapeutic sessions and a schedule subject to the program’s availability.
Father began counseling with a Family Ties therapist (Lewis); Family Ties scheduled therapeutic sessions for Child and Father; Mother objected to therapy and to Lewis as therapist and requested only supervised (non-therapeutic) visits or relocation of visits.
Family Ties offered limited alternative time slots; Mother declined some sessions and notified Family Ties Child would not attend scheduled sessions; Family Ties’ director alerted the court to alleged noncompliance.
Father filed a petition for contempt alleging Mother denied or interrupted parenting time; trial court found Mother in contempt, sentenced her to 30 days (purgeable by payment and demonstration of compliance), and Mother appealed.
This panel (Judge Bailey majority) reversed: concluded the trial court improperly delegated parental decision-making to Family Ties and that Mother established prima facie that her failure to attend was not willful contempt.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s/Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether the parenting-time order impermissibly delegated parental authority to a service provider	The order unlawfully delegated to Family Ties/its director authority to decide whether sessions would be therapeutic, who would provide therapy, and scheduling, thereby infringing Mother’s custodial rights under I.C. § 31-14-13-4	The order granted Family Ties control to implement the court’s directives; any dispute about its exercise did not relieve Mother from complying with the order	Reversed: the order impermissibly delegated decision-making about Child’s therapy to Family Ties without a court finding limiting Mother’s custodial authority; prima facie error shown
Whether Mother willfully violated the parenting-time order (contempt)	Mother contends she cooperated with the court order’s terms and refused only to acquiesce to Family Ties’ unilateral therapeutic requirement; given the order’s ambiguous language she did not willfully disobey	Trial court found Mother ignored directives and denied Father parenting time by not attending scheduled Family Ties sessions while her motion to relocate was pending	Reversed: Mother met prima facie burden that her conduct was not willful; contempt finding was an abuse of discretion

Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (failure of appellee to brief may lead to reversal on prima facie error review)
Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (definition of prima facie error on appeal)
In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. 2014) (limitations on state intrusion into family autonomy)
Matter of Paternity of A.R.R., 634 N.E.2d 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (trial court may not delegate judicial determinations about visitation modifications to a service agency)
Akiwumi v. Akiwumi, 23 N.E.3d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (indirect contempt and rule to show cause requirements)
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 785 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review for contempt findings)
City of Gary v. Major, 822 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (party can be held in contempt for willful disobedience of a clear court order; erroneous order must be appealed)
In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (forfeiture of right to appeal unchallenged trial-court orders)
In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (standard for excusing forfeiture of appellate review)