Karen Ellen Fielder v. Brandon Eric Fielder (mem.dec.), 49A02-1609-DR-2038

Mother and Father divorced; Father awarded sole legal and physical custody of three children; Mother had supervised parenting time and paid child support.
April 2016: trial court granted Mother unsupervised five-hour visits every other weekend with two younger children; Mother sought sole physical custody in May 2016.
August 2016 hearing: Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and Father both acknowledged improvement in Mother’s parenting but expressed reservations about immediately expanding visits to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (particularly overnight stays).
Trial court increased Mother’s unsupervised time with two children to 12 hours every other weekend (daytime), allowed children access to a phone to contact Father if uncomfortable, and ordered GAL reviews at one and three months.
Mother appealed only the modification of parenting time, arguing the court had to make an explicit finding that deviation from the Guidelines was necessary because compliance would endanger the children’s physical health or significantly impair their emotional development.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying Mother’s parenting time below the Guidelines	Mother: Court had to expressly find that following the Guidelines would endanger children’s physical health or significantly impair emotional development; no such explicit finding was made, so she should get Guideline time	(Respondent not briefed on appeal) Trial court’s implicit findings and evidence supported a cautious deviation; increase to 12 hours was appropriate and remedial	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; implicit findings and record support conclusion that Guideline parenting time now would endanger or impair the children; gradual increase was appropriate

Hatmaker v. Hatmaker, 998 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (best interests standard and abuse-of-discretion review for visitation)
Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (best interests of the child controls visitation disputes)
Stone v. Stone, 991 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (effect of sua sponte findings and review standards for findings versus general judgment)
MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (deference to trial court in family law but reversal for legal error or lack of evidentiary support)
Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (appellee’s failure to brief: prima facie error standard for reversal)
D.B. v. M.B.V., 913 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory standard: parenting time cannot be restricted absent findings that it would endanger physical health or significantly impair emotional development)
J.M. v. N.M., 844 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (implicit findings can support a restriction when evidence allows)
Drake v. Dickey, 2 N.E.3d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing confidentiality and inclusion of necessary factual detail in opinions)