Janet P. Hixson v. Doyle L. Silvers (mem. dec.), 85A05-1701-DR-138

Mother (Janet Hixson) and Father (Doyle Silvers) divorced in 2009; two children born 2000 and 2005. Mother later remarried and moved to North Carolina; Father remained in Indiana.
Trial court initially awarded Mother custody; Father petitioned to modify custody in 2013. Both parties filed contempt claims and GAL-fee claims; hearings occurred in Sept. 2014.
In Sept. 2014 the court temporarily awarded custody to Father, citing adolescent son’s wishes, deteriorating relationship with Stepfather, and evidence of disruptive domestic conflict in Mother’s home; ordered counseling and status hearings.
A DCS CHINS petition arose after a physical altercation in April 2015; children were briefly placed in foster care and returned to Father in April 2016 after the CHINS case concluded.
On Nov. 17, 2016 the trial court held a modification hearing and that same day entered an order awarding permanent custody to Father and ordering Mother to pay child support.
Mother appealed pro se, challenging evidentiary support for custody change and raising procedural complaints; many issues were waived for failure to raise them below or to include record materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hixson)	Defendant's Argument (Silvers)	Held
Whether permanent custody modification to Father was supported by evidence	Trial court erred; depriving child contact with mother not in best interest; findings prejudiced and unsupported	Trial court relied on statutory best-interest factors, counseling participation, child’s expressed wishes, and domestic-conflict evidence	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; substantial changes and best-interest factors supported modification
Whether trial court procedurally erred (withheld reports/evidence, delays, coercion)	Court committed multiple procedural errors	Procedural objections not preserved; appellee did not brief	Waived — issues not raised below or record incomplete, so forfeited on appeal
Whether child-support computation was erroneous	Mother claims calculation errors and motion to correct was denied erroneously	Record lacks motion and hearing argument; appellee silent	Waived and not reviewable — incomplete record and failure to present issue below
Whether appellate review should be more searching because appellee did not file brief	Mother seeks reversal based on lack of opposition brief	Court applies relaxed standard but still requires appellant show prima facie error	No prima facie error shown; judgment affirmed

Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (pro se litigant held to same procedural rules as counsel)
Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (no benevolent indulgence for pro se parties on appeal)
Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (absence of appellee brief permits application of less stringent review)
Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of prima facie error on appeal)
Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for custody modification; petitioner bears burden to show need for change)
In re Marriage of Sutton, 16 N.E.3d 481 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming custody modification where Section 8 factors supported change)
Keesling v. [unnamed], 858 N.E.2d 1009 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (failure to provide cogent argument or record citations waives issue)
Van Winkle v. Nash, 761 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (failure to raise issue in trial court results in waiver on appeal)