In Re: the Marriage of S.B. v. J.B. (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 20 2016, 6:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Bryan L. Ciyou David E. Baum
Darlene R. Seymour David E. Baum Law Office, P.C.
Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. Chesterton, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: the Marriage of December 20, 2016
S.B., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Petitioner, 64A03-1603-DR-533
Appeal from the Porter Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Roger V. Bradford,
J.B., Judge
The Honorable Mary A. DeBoer,
Appellee-Respondent
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
64D01-1303-DR-2181
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 1 of 17
[1] S.B. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order granting primary physical custody
of her child, B.B., to J.B. (Father). She raises three arguments: (1) the trial
court failed to conduct the required statutory analysis for a relocating parent; (2)
her due process rights were violated; and (3) the trial court erred by ordering her
to pay a portion of Father’s attorney fees. We find that the trial court failed to
conduct the required statutory analysis, though we find no error on Mother’s
latter two arguments. Therefore, we reverse and remand so that the trial court
can engage in the proper analysis and enter a new order to that effect.
Facts
[2] Mother and Father were married, and one child, B.B., was born of the marriage
on May 27, 2010. Their marriage was dissolved on August 7, 2014. As part of
its dissolution order, the dissolution court incorporated an agreement reached
during mediation by the parties regarding custody and parenting time (the
Mediation Agreement). In relevant part, the Mediation Agreement provides as
follows:
 Mother and Father would have joint legal custody of B.B.
 Although the Mediation Agreement does not include a specific
agreement regarding physical custody of B.B., it implied that B.B. would
live with Mother and stated that Father would have parenting time every
other weekend and one weeknight per week. Father also provided
childcare to B.B. during Mother’s weekday work hours.
 Father agreed to pay child support based upon an assumption that he
would exercise 140 overnights with B.B. annually.
 The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines would govern division of
holiday parenting time, and “Mother shall be classified as the custodial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 2 of 17
parent for the purpose of interpreting said guidelines, and for that
purpose only.” Appellant’s App. p. 35.
 The parties agreed that the “parenting time schedule shall remain in
effect through the date the parties’ minor child commences kindergarten
at which time the parties shall restructure parenting time to effectuate an
equal division of the same based on the child’s school schedule.” Id.
In September 2014, Mother began searching for a more affordable home. She
found a suitable option in North Judson, where Mother’s parents lived, which
was approximately twenty-five miles from her prior residence.
[3] In December 2014, Father made a feces shape out of Play-Doh, placed it so that
it appeared to be coming out of B.B.’s bottom, took a picture of the event, and
posted it to Facebook. Mother saw the picture, became alarmed, and contacted
the Department of Child Services (DCS). She refused to permit Father to
exercise his parenting time until DCS completed its investigation and report. 1
On December 19, 2014, Father filed pleadings with the court regarding the
denial of his parenting time. The trial court issued a temporary restraining
order requiring Mother to provide Father with his parenting time and a citation
for contempt of court the same day.
[4] On January 7, 2015, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate and a petition to
modify parenting time based on the Play-Doh incident. On February 23, 2015,
Father filed a motion for an order to prevent the relocation of B.B. and a
1
DCS found that the allegations of abuse or neglect were unsubstantiated and no criminal charges were filed
against Father as a result of the incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 3 of 17
petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support. On February 27,
2015, the trial court issued an interim order allowing Mother to relocate with
B.B. but prohibiting her from enrolling the child in kindergarten. On
November 10, 2015, Mother filed a motion seeking to have Father found in
contempt because he had enrolled B.B. in kindergarten and failed to inform her,
causing her to miss her son’s first day of kindergarten.
[5] On February 23, 2016, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on all pending
motions. Mother was pro se at that hearing. In its order, which was entered on
February 26, 2016, the trial court found and held, in relevant part, as follows:
27. . . . The Court has considered the following:
***
b. Mother currently has “physical custody” of [B.B.]
and would like the Court to make her the sole
custodial parent. Father would like physical
custody to be awarded to him.
***
d. [B.B.] interacts very well with both parents.
***
e. There was no evidence to refute the fact that [B.B.]
has adjusted well to Mother’s new residence in
North Judson. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 4 of 17
***
g. [B.B.] is attending full day kindergarten in
Father’s . . . school district . . . . [B.B.’s] teacher has
reported that [B.B.] is doing well at school. . . .
Because of [B.B.’s] young age, the Court does not
have any concerns that he would function well in
either school system.
***
j. . . . Mother and Father have both conducted
themselves in ways that have been (or are likely to
have been) detrimental to [B.B.]
k. Father has done things which the Court finds ill-
advised, immature and reckless.
***
l. Mother has her own issues in the Court’s eyes.
i. Perhaps it is because of Mother’s
employment with Family Services that colors
Mother’s perception that every scratch and
bump on [B.B.] is suspicious. Unfortunately,
Mother’s means of dealing with her
suspicions has manifested itself in an
abundance of photographs being taken of the
child to document his “injuries.” The Court
finds this disturbing in general and
detrimental to [B.B.] because every time she
poses him for another photo, it potentially
raises questions in [B.B.’s] mind that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 5 of 17
something is wrong—again. . . . Her
excessive documentation demonstrated her
willingness to use [B.B.] to further her cause
in this custody dispute.
***
29. The Court finds that Mother’s relocation was made in
good faith and for a legitimate reason. Her lease had
expired on her residence, her roommate had moved away
and the rent was due to increase to an extent Mother could
not afford.
***
32. Normally when relocation is an issue, once Mother proved
that she had a legitimate reason to move, the burden
would shift to Father to show that the proposed move was
not in [B.B.’s] best interest.
33. Because the Court has previously determined that this
matter is not actually a modification of custody issue but
an initial determination of custody, the Court has reviewed
and taken into consideration all of the relocation factors
outlined in I.C. 31-17-2.2-2. Given the Court’s decision to
award physical custody to Father, it is unnecessary to
analyze each relocation factor in this Order.
34. The Court finds after considering all relevant factors
required by statute that Father is awarded sole physical
custody of [B.B.]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 6 of 17
Appellant’s App. p. 11-15. The trial court ordered that Mother and Father
would continue to share joint legal custody, set forth a detailed schedule of
Mother’s parenting time, ordered Mother to pay child support in the amount of
$18 per week, and declined to find Mother in contempt for her decision to
withhold parenting time from Father in December 2014. The trial court did not
rule on Mother’s motion to have Father found in contempt for enrolling B.B. in
kindergarten and not informing her. Finally, the trial court ordered Mother to
pay attorney fees to Father’s attorney in the amount of $700. Mother now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Custody Modification
[6] Mother argues that the trial court erred by granting Father’s petition to modify
custody without considering all statutorily required factors. In its order, the
trial court sua sponte entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. In
reviewing the order, we first determine whether the evidence supports the
findings; and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Harris v.
Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930, 934-35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). But we owe no deference
to the trial court’s conclusions of law and will review those conclusions de
novo. Id. at 935. We will reverse only if the trial court’s order is clearly
erroneous. Id.[7] If a parent intends to relocate, she must file a notice of her intent to move with
the court that issued the custody or parenting time order already in place. Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 7 of 17
Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a). In response, the non-relocating parent may file a motion
seeking a temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation of the child.
I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5. In many cases, one or both parents will also file a petition to
modify custody and/or parenting time as a result of the relocation. In ruling on
a petition to modify in the context of a relocating parent, the trial court “shall”
take the following factors into consideration:
(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.
(2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating
individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent
visitation.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable
parenting time and grandparent visitation arrangements,
including consideration of the financial circumstances of
the parties.
(4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the
relocating individual, including actions by the relocating
individual to either promote or thwart a nonrelocating
individual’s contact with the child.
(5) The reasons provided by the:
(A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and
(B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of
the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 8 of 17
(6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.
I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b) (emphasis added). If, however, the notice of relocation is
filed in the context of an initial custody determination (as opposed to a
modification of an already-existing order), then “the court may consider” the
factors above. I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(a) (emphasis added). In either case, there is a
statutory burden-shifting analysis required when a motion seeking an order to
prevent the relocation of a child is filed:
(c) The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the
proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a
legitimate reason.
(d) If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof
under subsection (c), the burden shifts to the nonrelocating
parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the
best interest of the child.
I.C. § 3-17-2.2-5.
[8] To determine how the trial court was required to proceed, therefore, we must
determine whether its custody ruling constituted an initial custody order (as it
found) or a custody modification in the context of a relocating parent (as
Mother contends). First, we turn to the language of the trial court’s original
order, as found in the parties’ Mediated Agreement. That Agreement explicitly
stated that the parents would share joint legal custody. And although it did not
make an explicit statement about physical custody, it clearly implied that B.B.
would live with Mother, while Father would receive parenting time. Moreover,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 9 of 17
Father’s child support obligation was calculated on an assumption that he
would exercise 140 annual overnights—less than 50%. However, Father also
cared for B.B. during nearly every week day while Mother was at work. At the
very least, therefore, the Mediated Agreement implied that the parties intended
to share joint physical custody of the child. 2
[9] We do not believe that either the trial court or the parents intended to leave the
very important issue of B.B.’s physical custody unresolved. When the trial
court entered its final dissolution decree, incorporating the Mediated
Agreement, it had to have intended that to be a final order, disposing of all
issues, including the crucial issue of physical custody of the child. It is
necessarily true, therefore, that any subsequent order regarding custody or
parenting time would be a modification of that initial order. 3
[10] Having concluded that the trial court’s order was a modification of an already-
existing order regarding custody, parenting time, and child support, we must
now consider the interplay between custody modification and a parent’s plan to
relocate. This Court has explained that interplay as follows:
[O]ur supreme court addressed the statutory interplay between
the Relocation Factors and the Best Interests Factors [in
2
Mother insists that she was awarded physical custody of B.B. in the Mediated Agreement. We need not
resolve this issue, however, as even if the parties agreed on joint physical custody, the subsequent order was a
modification, meaning that the trial court erred.
3
And indeed, Father clearly assumed as much, given that the motion that he filed—and that the trial court
ruled upon—was a motion to modify custody and parenting time, rather than a motion for an initial custody
order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 10 of 17
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008)]. Initial custody
determinations are to be based on an analysis of the Best Interests
Factors. Id. at 1254. In order to modify the initial custody
decree, the trial court must find that modification is in the child’s
best interests and that “there has been ‘a substantial change’ in
one or more of the [Best Interests Factors] identified in . . . the
initial custody determination.” Id. at 1255 (quoting I.C. § 31-17-
2-21 (the Modification Statute)). If, however, the trial court
reviews a request to modify custody stemming from a parent’s plan
to relocate, the court must assess the Relocation Factors, which
“incorporate[ ] all of the [Best Interests Factors], but add[ ] some
new ones.” Id. at 1256-57. A parent’s proposed relocation does
not necessarily require a custody modification, and, in contrast to
the Modification Statute, a relocation-based modification need
not involve a substantial change to one of the original Best
Interests Factors. Id.
Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186, 1191-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (emphases
original), trans. denied. When a motion to modify custody is filed in response to
the other parent’s notice of intent to relocate, the trial court is required to fully
consider all of the factors listed in Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(b), and the
failure to do so is reversible error. E.g., In re Paternity of J.J., 911 N.E.2d 725,
730-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that modification of child custody was
erroneous where trial court failed to fully consider each factor in relocation
statute); Wolljung v. Sidell, 891 N.E.2d 1109, 1112-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
(same).
[11] In the case before us, the trial court explicitly refused to apply the relevant
relocation statutory provisions:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 11 of 17
32. Normally when relocation is an issue, once Mother proved
that she had a legitimate reason to move, the burden
would shift to Father to show that the proposed move was
not in [B.B.’s] best interest.
33. Because the Court has previously determined that this
matter is not actually a modification of custody issue but
an initial determination of custody, the Court has reviewed
and taken into consideration all of the relocation factors
outlined in I.C. 31-17-2.2-2. Given the Court’s decision to
award physical custody to Father, it is unnecessary to
analyze each relocation factor in this Order.
Appellant’s App. p. 15. In relevant part, the trial court had two motions before
it. First, as to Father’s motion to prevent B.B.’s relocation, which is governed
by Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-5, the trial court failed to apply the burden-
shifting provision found in this statute, which requires that Father show that the
proposed relocation was not in the child’s best interest. Second, as to Father’s
motion to modify custody and parenting time, which is governed by Indiana
Code section 31-17-2.2-1(b), the trial court failed to fully consider and analyze
all of the mandatory relocation factors found in this statute.
[12] It appears from the transcript that the parties each presented evidence related to
all of the relocation factors. Therefore, an entirely new evidentiary hearing is
not necessary. Instead, the trial court must apply the burden-shifting provision
and fully analyze all of the relocation factors, reaching its conclusions based on
the evidence in the record. We note that the trial court has already found that
Mother met her burden of establishing that the relocation was made in good
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 12 of 17
faith and for a legitimate reason. The burden shifts, therefore, to Father. For
the trial court to rule in Father’s favor would require a finding that the
relocation is not in B.B.’s best interest. We reverse and remand so that the trial
court can draft and enter a new order.
II. Due Process
[13] We will briefly address Mother’s due process argument. Specifically, she
contends that the trial court was prejudiced against her, that it failed to rule on
her contempt allegations, and that the mediator breached confidentiality
obligations when testifying at the hearing. As for the trial court’s demeanor,
our Supreme Court has noted that a “crusty demeanor” towards litigants is
acceptable so long as it is applied even-handedly. In re J.K., 30 N.E.3d 695,
698-99 (Ind. 2015). In this case, while the trial court at times expressed
frustration with Mother, often stemming from the fact that she was proceeding
pro se and uneducated in courtroom process, the trial court also expressed
frustration with Father and his past behavior, particularly the Play-Doh
incident. We do not find any of the trial court’s behavior towards Mother in
this case to indicate that it was biased against her, nor do we find that her due
process rights were violated for this reason.4
4
Mother also argues that the guardian ad litem was biased against her, but does not explain how that alleged
fact would violate her due process rights. In any event, we find no support in the record for this allegation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 13 of 17
[14] Second, Mother argues that the trial court failed to rule on her motion to have
Father held in contempt for enrolling B.B. in kindergarten. While Mother filed
a motion to have Father held in contempt, she did not request that a rule to
show cause be issued. As no rule to show cause was issued, the trial court
would have committed reversible error had it found Father in contempt. See
Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207, 1210-11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding
that if no rule to show cause is issued in compliance with Ind. Code section 34-
47-3-5, then a person may not be held in indirect contempt). Additionally, at
the start of the hearing, the trial court asked the parties to clarify all of the
pending motions before it, and Mother did not include her motion for contempt
in the list. Therefore, if nothing else, the trial court’s failure to rule on the issue
was invited error.
[15] Finally, Mother alleges that the mediator’s testimony violated her rights
because the mediator divulged confidential information. It is well established
that evidence of conduct or statements made during mediation is not admissible
and that this confidentiality requirement may not be waived by either party.
A.D.R. Rule 2.11. Here, the mediator largely testified to basic facts: he was
present at the mediation at issue and the parties reached a mediated agreement;
the agreement presented to him at trial was the agreement they reached; and the
agreement said what it said. Tr. p. 85-88. None of that testimony divulged
confidential information or was in any way improper. On a couple of
occasions, however, the mediator veered into what he believed the parties
intended. Tr. p. 87 (“that was the only reference to—and it was an intentional
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 14 of 17
reference—that there would be no other distinction with respect to physical
custody”), 88 (“there was always this understanding that there was going to be
this shared parenting time and equal division of time”). That testimony was
improper, as it implicitly divulged the content of the parties’ negotiations. That
said, we do not find that this de minimis testimony rose to a level of a violation
of Mother’s due process rights, and decline to reverse on this basis.
III. Attorney Fees
[16] Finally, Mother argues that the trial court erred by ordering her to pay attorney
fees in the amount of $700 to Father’s attorney. We will reverse an attorney fee
award in a post-dissolution context only if the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Ratliff v.
Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237, 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Where, as here, the trial
court did not issue findings with respect to this issue, we will affirm the general
judgment if it can be sustained upon any legal theory supported by the evidence
in the record. In re Marriage of Snemis, 575 N.E.2d 650, 652 (Ind. Ct. App.
1991).
[17] Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(c) provides that, in the context of a relocation
hearing, the trial court may “award reasonable attorney fees for a motion [to
review and modify custody or parenting time] filed under this section in
accordance with IC 31-15-10.” Indiana Code section 31-15-10-1(a) states that
the trial court “may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 15 of 17
other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this article and
for attorney’s fees and mediation services . . . .”
[18] Mother argues that because the trial court did not hold her in contempt for her
decision to withhold parenting time from Father following the Play-Doh
incident, there is no basis in the record for the attorney fee award. The trial
court found that Mother should have called Father following the Play-Doh
incident instead of involving “several governmental agencies” and that she
withheld parenting time even after being notified that “[n]one of the agencies
opted to investigate further or charge Father with anything.” Appellant’s App.
p. 14.
[19] Father submitted documentation establishing that he incurred attorney fees in a
total amount of $4495. Resp. Ex. 20-21. We find that the trial court did not err
by ordering Mother to pay $700—a reasonable portion of the total fees he
incurred. However, after engaging in the proper statutory analysis and entering
a new order, the trial court would be within its authority to reevaluate the
attorney fee award and reach a different result.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 16 of 17
[20] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to
reevaluate its order by applying the correct statutory analysis and issue a new
order to that effect.5
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
5
Depending on the result of its new analysis, the trial court may reach the same result or a different result on
all pending issues, including custody, parenting time, and attorney fees.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1603-DR-533 | December 20, 2016 Page 17 of 17