Wayne Patton v. Jessica Patton
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 751
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents divorced in January 2013; Mother awarded sole legal and physical custody of son W.P. (born 2007); Father had supervised visitation since 2011.
- In 2012 Father was convicted of child seduction for fondling his then-16-year-old daughter (now emancipated) and was placed on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry.
- Father moved in July 2014 to modify parenting time (seek unsupervised visitation) and to reduce child support after one child, Ja.P., became emancipated.
- Mother requested a psychological evaluation; Dr. Stephen Ross found Father defensive, questioned his judgment (citing comic books Father gave W.P.), and did not recommend unsupervised visitation.
- Trial court denied unsupervised visitation but authorized supervised visits (including supervised by Father’s mother) and conditioned future unsupervised visits on joint counseling and a counselor’s written recommendation.
- Trial court refused to reduce child support, finding the new guideline amount differed by less than 20% from the current order; the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of unsupervised visitation but reversed as to child support and remanded to reduce support to the guideline amount of $136.42 per week.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to lift supervised visitation requirement | Supervision should continue given safety concerns and evaluator’s reservations | Supervision unnecessary; seeks unsupervised visitation | Visitation supervision continued; no manifest abuse of discretion in denying unsupervised visits, but court provided steps to obtain unsupervised visits (counseling + recommendation) |
| Whether parenting-time restriction standard applied correctly | Trial court’s findings supported restriction to protect child | Father argued court used incorrect “might” language rather than “would” standard | Although court used the word “may/might” in its order, record supported the restriction; no reversible error |
| Whether child support should be reduced because one child emancipated | Support should be reduced to reflect emancipation of Ja.P. | Argues emancipation is a substantial and continuing change warranting modification | Court of Appeals reversed trial court and remanded: emancipation required modification to guideline amount of $136.42/week |
| Proper method for modifying child support (20% guideline rule vs. changed circumstances) | Mother relied on <20% rule to oppose modification | Father invoked changed circumstances (emancipation) under subsection 1 | Emancipation is a substantial, continuing change; because guideline difference was <20%, Father properly proceeded under changed-circumstances standard and succeeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Duncan, 843 N.E.2d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parental visitation is a protected privilege; noncustodial parents generally entitled to reasonable visitation)
- Pennington v. Pennington, 596 N.E.2d 305 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (standard of review for visitation modification—abuse of discretion)
- Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013) (interpretation of statutory standard for restricting parenting time; courts require evidence that parenting time would endanger or impair)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (application of 20% guideline deviation rule for child support modification)
- Cross v. Cross, 891 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard and factors for modifying child support)
- In re E.M.P., 722 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (review standard for child support modification)