Kevin R. Koontz v. Erin L. (Koontz) Scott
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 263
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in 2009; Mother (Erin/Scott) awarded sole custody of Son (born ~1996); Father (Kevin Koontz) received parenting time per guidelines. Son was 12 at dissolution.
- After a December 2009 altercation, Father had no parenting time and made no contact with Son from December 2009 until mid/late 2015; Father continued child support withholdings but otherwise disappeared and moved residences without informing Son.
- Son turned 18 in Nov. 2014, graduated high school Dec. 2014, and was accepted to college. Mother sought contribution toward college costs in May 2015 (proposed 40/40/20 split); Father did not respond to initial letters.
- Father only began attempting contact (Facebook request, repeated calls, brief voicemails) after Mother filed for college contribution; these efforts occurred within about two months before the hearing and went largely unanswered.
- At the November 2015 hearing, Son (about to turn 19) testified he had not repudiated Father, wanted a relationship, and was confused about how to reestablish contact; trial court found Son did not repudiate and ordered Father, Mother, and Son to each pay one-third of college expenses.
- Father appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not finding Son repudiated the parent-child relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in refusing to find adult Son repudiated Father, thereby relieving Father of college-contribution duty | Father: Son repudiated the relationship by rejecting contact; Father should be excused from paying college costs | Mother/Son: Son did not repudiate; Son expressed willingness to reconnect and confusion about how to do so after years of absence | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supported finding Son had not repudiated Father |
| Appropriate allocation of college expenses | Mother: Court should order contribution; proposed split 40/40/20 | Father: Should not be required to contribute due to alleged repudiation | Court: Ordered equal one-third share among Mother, Father, and Son |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and precedent upholding repudiation findings)
- Kahn v. Baker, 36 N.E.3d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (repudiation definition: "complete refusal" and parent’s right to have repudiation affect college-contribution obligation)
- McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (adopted Milne rationale: repudiating adult child may be denied court-ordered educational support)
- Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (reasoning that an adult child who willfully abandons a parent should not be allowed to compel parental funding without demonstrating respect/reconciliation)
- Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (upholding repudiation where adult child actively refused relationship)
- Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (repudiation finding where adult offspring used abusive language and cut off contact)
- Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (repudiation where rejection continued after majority despite father’s repeated reconciliation efforts)