Stacey H. Young v, Michael A. Young (mem. dec.)
29A02-1707-DR-1478
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Parents divorced after 2015 decree awarding joint legal and physical custody of their son (born 2009); parenting coordinator (PC) and guardian ad litem (GAL) were appointed to resolve disputes about the child’s healthcare, including immunizations.
- Major disputes centered on vaccinations (Mother opposes; Father favors vaccination) and earlier dental care; parents ultimately agreed to a very delayed vaccination schedule (one vaccine at 11 and another at 17).
- Father pled guilty to a 2015 felony battery, attended psychotherapy and anger-management counseling, and asserted he abstained from alcohol since May 2016; GAL and PC recommended keeping joint custody.
- Mother moved to modify custody (seeking sole legal custody) and parenting time, objected to reappointment of the GAL, and disputed allocation of work-related childcare costs; Father sought clarification and attorney fees.
- The trial court denied Mother’s requests to modify legal custody and parenting time, reappointed the GAL, clarified that work-related childcare costs remain split pro rata per the preliminary order (65% Father / 35% Mother), and ordered Mother to reimburse $10,000 of Father’s attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of GAL and allocation of fees | Reappointment was improper and biased; would delay the hearing | Reappointment appropriate to represent child’s interests; no delay occurred | Court did not abuse discretion in appointing GAL; fee allocation not preserved on appeal |
| Modification of joint legal custody to sole custody | Joint custody is a battlefield; substantial and continuing changes warrant sole custody | Parents can cooperate; GAL/PC recommend joint custody and no substantial change exists | Court found no substantial and continuing change; denied modification |
| Modification of parenting time (reduce Father’s time) | Father’s felony, anger, alcohol use endanger child and warrant restricting parenting time | Father has rehabilitated, engaged in therapy, abstinent, and is an involved parent | Court credited Father’s improvements and denied Mother’s request to restrict parenting time |
| Allocation / reimbursement of work-related childcare costs | Decree silence makes retroactive modification impermissible; each party should pay their own costs | Decree preserved preliminary order child-related provisions, which allocated childcare pro rata; costs should be split | Court clarified decree, applying preliminary-order pro rata allocation and ordered Mother to reimburse portion of past costs |
| Award of attorney fees to Father | Fee award excessive and unjustified | Mother’s repeated litigation and rejection of GAL/PC recommendations caused additional fees; consider parties’ resources | Court acted within discretion and awarded $10,000 to Father based on resources and Mother’s litigation conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing Trial Rule 52(A) findings and deference to trial-court factfinding)
- Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (burden on party seeking custody modification and appellate review standard)
- Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008) (preference for trial-court latitude in family law and finality in custody matters)
- Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (trial court retains jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its dissolution decree)
- Shepherd v. Tackett, 954 N.E.2d 477 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (clarification vs. modification of a decree; clarification permitted where no substantial change to original decree)