James Showalter v. Tanya Ray (mem. dec.)
18A02-1608-JP-1849
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Parents: James Showalter (father) and Tanya Ray (mother); one child born Oct. 3, 2010. Original paternity/support order set father's weekly support at $42 (2011).
- Father had little-to-no parenting time for ~4 years and petitioned in Dec. 2015 to establish phased-in parenting time; mother filed to modify child support in May 2016.
- At the May 6, 2016 hearing: Showalter testified to hourly pay ($13/hr regular, $19.50 overtime), 2015 gross income $46,574, expected ~ $42,000 in 2016, and a $65/week child-support obligation for another child; he also had $300/month restitution. Ray testified she was a part-time worker, had a daycare scholarship for the child that would end June 3, 2016, and projected daycare costs thereafter.
- Trial court ordered phased-in parenting time with counseling (costs to be paid by father), recalculated child support via two worksheets (pre- and post-June 3, 2016), and awarded mother $1,963 in attorney fees.
- On appeal, father challenged the trial court’s child-support calculations (including overtime, prior-child support deduction, and childcare costs) and the attorney-fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Showalter) | Defendant's Argument (Ray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in calculating modified child support | Trial court erred by: (1) including overtime in income; (2) failing to deduct child support for a prior-born child; (3) including non–work-related or full-time childcare costs | Ray relied on her worksheet and court’s worksheets; trial court found father’s usual income ≈ $42,000 and included childcare after scholarship ended | Court affirmed inclusion of overtime/ $42,000 income but reversed/remanded because trial court failed to deduct the $65/week prior-child support and improperly included childcare costs without adequate findings/support — remand to clarify or recalculate |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees | Award was improper | Mother requested $1,963; father initially said he would not respond but then agreed at trial to pay $1,963 | Affirmed: father waived appellate review of attorney-fees issue by agreeing at the hearing to pay the requested amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Holtzleiter v. Holtzleiter, 944 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for child-support modification and deference to trial court observations)
- In re Paternity of G.R.G., 829 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (role of Child Support Guidelines and presumption in their application)
- Heiligenstein v. Matney, 691 N.E.2d 1297 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (need for trial court to reveal basis for support amount via findings or worksheet)
- Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (if court deviates from Guidelines it must enter findings and provide worksheet demonstrating calculations)
- Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 934 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (analysis of appropriate childcare allocation relative to parent’s employment)
- Schacht v. Schacht, 892 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court’s discretion in awarding attorney fees; factors to consider)