P.S. v. W.C.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1422
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- W.C. (born 2000) is autistic; Mother and Father share a paternity custody history.
- Father admitted paternity in 2002 and was awarded parenting time under Indiana guidelines; custody modified in 2009.
- May 2010 order limited Mother’s parenting time to one-hour Sunday visits at McDonald’s, supervised by Father, plus limited Wednesday calls.
- A protective order restricted any further contact outside the ordered times.
- At the July 2010 review, Father submitted a three-page journal detailing Mother’s conduct and its effects on W.C.; no additional expert testimony was presented.
- The trial court immediately suspended Mother’s parenting time and issued a protective order until 2020, without explicit statutory findings of endangerment or significant emotional impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly restricted parenting time under the statute. | Father contends restricted time was justified by risk to the child. | Mother argues no proper endangerment or impairment findings were proven. | Abuse of discretion; temporary restriction unlawful without proper findings. |
| Whether the evidence showed endangerment or significant impairment to W.C. | Father relied on journal entries showing upset and regression. | Mother asserts no proven causal link between visits and harm. | Evidence did not meet required burden to prove endangerment or significant impairment. |
| Whether termination of parenting time was supported by the record or should be remanded for alternatives. | Father sought termination of parenting time. | Mother should be allowed some parenting time with safeguards. | Termination not supported; remand for supervised parenting and counseling. |
| Who bears the burden of proof to justify restricting parenting time. | Father bears burden to justify restriction given existing framework. | Mother contests the evidence and methods used. | Burden on movant (Father) not met; decision reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.B. v. M.B.V., 913 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (parenting time effectively terminated where no-contact orders issued)
- Taylor v. Buehler, 694 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (parenting time decisions under paternity statutes within trial court discretion)
- Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (noncustodial parenting time is a precious, time-delicate right prioritizing child best interests)
- WalkER v. Nelson, 911 N.E.2d 124 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (court may not restrict parenting time without endangerment or impairment findings)
- Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (burden of proof for restricting parenting time is preponderance of the evidence)
- In re Paternity of P.B., 932 N.E.2d 712 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (preponderance standard applied to restrict parenting time)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 843 N.E.2d 966 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (denial of parenting time not abuse of discretion where evidence shows egregious conduct)