Paternity of G.G.B.W. v. S.W.
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 309
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents (Father J.B. and Mother S.W.) entered an Agreed Decree of Paternity in 2011 allocating joint legal custody but requiring Mother to seek Father’s input before making major medical, religious, or educational decisions; the Decree separately provided that the child must be vaccinated if the school requires vaccination for enrollment.
- The child was not vaccinated in infancy; she later attended public school that required vaccinations but permitted a parental religious-exemption form to avoid immunization; Mother submitted that form without Father’s consent so the child remained unvaccinated.
- Father filed (2015–2016) a petition to modify legal custody limited to medical decisions, a contempt petition, and a motion for rule to show cause alleging Mother violated the Decree by submitting the religious-exemption form and failing to vaccinate the child.
- During litigation Father’s newborn son could not be vaccinated for medical reasons; Father limited parenting time citing infection risk from the unvaccinated child.
- Trial testimony included medical and religious-witness evidence on vaccination risks and on whether Mother’s faith forbids vaccination; the trial court denied contempt and custody modification and ordered Father to pay $10,000 toward Mother’s attorney fees.
- The appellate court found the trial court misinterpreted the Decree, concluded Mother violated the vaccination provision, reversed the contempt and custody rulings (limited to vaccination decision-making), and reversed the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother was in contempt for failing to vaccinate child per Decree | Decree requires vaccination when school requires it; no exception for a parental religious-exemption form | Statutory religious-exemption allowed enrollment without vaccination, so Decree’s vaccination requirement was not triggered | Court: Decree’s vaccination clause is specific and controls; Mother’s use of the exemption circumvented the Decree — contempt finding should have been entered (trial court misinterpreted Decree) |
| Whether to modify legal custody (medical decisions re: vaccination) | Mother’s conduct in circumventing the Decree is a substantial change and harms cooperation; modification for vaccination decisions is in child’s best interest | Trial court found no sufficient change to modify custody | Court: Trial court abused discretion; limited modification of legal custody (medical vaccination decisions) is warranted |
| Whether Father must pay $10,000 of Mother’s attorney fees | Father argued award was improper given Mother’s misconduct in circumventing the Decree | Trial court relied on income disparity and ordered contribution | Court: Abuse of discretion to require Father to pay given Mother’s contemptuous conduct — fee award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (discussing review of findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (defining clear-error standard for findings)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (when judgment is clearly erroneous)
- In re D.J. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574 (judgment erroneous if wrong legal standard applied)
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (contempt determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 914 N.E.2d 747 (reversing contempt only when no supporting evidence)
- Comm’r, Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. RLG, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 556 (standard for reversing negative judgments)
- Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271 (settlement agreements and freedom of contract in family cases)
- Whittaker v. Whittaker, 44 N.E.3d 716 (court’s role in interpreting incorporated settlement agreements)
- Schmidt v. Schmidt, 812 N.E.2d 1074 (contract interpretation & unambiguous language from four corners)
- GPI at Danville Crossing, L.P. v. W. Cent. Conservancy Dist., 867 N.E.2d 645 (specific contract terms control over general terms)
- Schwartz v. Heeter, 994 N.E.2d 1102 (applicable law in force at contract formation impliedly part of agreement)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference in family law custody decisions)
- In re Paternity of M.R.A., 41 N.E.3d 287 (trial court may award attorney fees in paternity actions and factors to consider)
- DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Brown, 29 N.E.3d 729 (abuse of discretion defined)
- A.G.R. ex rel. Conflenti v. Huff, 815 N.E.2d 120 (fee awards when one party is in superior position to pay)