Tracy Haney Mills v. Scott Haney (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                       FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                              Dec 23 2020, 10:01 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing
    CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                 Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                            and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    Kristina L. Lynn                                        Jay T. Hirschauer
    Lynn Law Office, P.C.                                   Hirschauer & Hirschauer
    Wabash, Indiana                                         Logansport, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Tracy Haney Mills,                                      December 23, 2020
    Appellant-Respondent,                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
    20A-DR-1340
    v.                                              Appeal from the Wabash Superior
    Court
    Scott Haney,                                            The Honorable William C.
    Appellee-Petitioner                                     Menges, Jr., Special Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    85D01-0001-DR-3
    Crone, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020               Page 1 of 7
    Case Summary
    [1]   Tracy Haney Mills (Mother) filed a motion for an order requiring her ex-
    husband Scott Haney (Father) to contribute to the college expenses of their
    daughter (Daughter). After several hearings, the trial court denied the motion,
    finding that Daughter had repudiated her relationship with Father. Mother
    now appeals, claiming that the trial court’s finding is erroneous. We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   The relevant facts most favorable to the trial court’s ruling are as follows.
    Mother and Father had two children, including Daughter, who was born in
    April 1997. Mother and Father’s marriage ended acrimoniously in August
    2001, and Mother had custody of the children. Father paid child support, but
    Mother repeatedly frustrated his visitation efforts, even after being found in
    contempt in January 2006, and he ultimately stopped visiting the children in
    2007 or 2008. 1 Father has not spoken to Mother since 2001, and he has not had
    a conversation with Daughter since approximately 2013.
    1
    At the July 2017 hearing, Father testified,
    It was every time I came to Indiana [from Pennsylvania] to pick up my child or my children, I
    had to go and call [Father’s attorney] on a Friday afternoon. I had to be here on Thursday to
    try to do it, and then I would have to get an emergency petition from the court and have a
    Sheriff come out to their house and pick up the children or, or escort them to me. That’s why it
    got to be every single time, and, and that is why it ended up not being me coming to see my
    kids. It wasn’t because I didn’t love them. My God! It was every single time I came over here
    it was constantly, constantly, it was costing me $600.00 to drive over here and back and another
    $500.00 or so to pay [the attorney] to, to go, to get an emergency petition, and that is why. I
    just said I can’t keep doing this.
    Tr. Vol. 2 at 53.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020                   Page 2 of 7
    [3]   In 2016, Mother filed a motion for an order requiring Father to assist Daughter
    with her college expenses. The trial court held hearings in July 2017, July 2018,
    and June 2020. In July 2017, Daughter was attending college and living with
    Mother but was considered emancipated for child support purposes. Both
    Father and Daughter stated that they had no relationship. Daughter testified
    that Father had not called or written her in the last five years and that she had
    called him, but “he doesn’t answer. It’s my stepmom who answers.” Tr. Vol. 2
    at 45. Father testified that no one contacted him before Daughter started
    college and that he had received no information regarding where she was going
    to school, her grades, or financial aid. He stated that he wanted to “re-establish
    a relationship” with Daughter, but that he did “not want to pay for the college
    right at this time.” Id. at 49, 50.
    [4]   At the July 2018 hearing, Father testified that Daughter had not talked to him
    since the last hearing. He stated that just before the current hearing began, he
    walked by Mother, Daughter, and her stepfather, and Daughter “didn’t say a
    word to” him. Id. at 80. When asked if he said anything to her, Father replied
    that he did not but observed, “She is now twenty-one. She could have walked
    over and said hi to me too.” Id. at 83. He stated that he did not think that it
    was “appropriate” for him to pay for Daughter’s college expenses. Id. at 79.
    [5]   At the June 2020 hearing, Daughter did not appear. Mother testified that
    Daughter had not had any contact with Father since the last hearing. Father
    testified that he briefly saw Daughter in court while waiting for a hearing that
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020   Page 3 of 7
    was ultimately cancelled 2 but had not had any communication with her since.
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled from the bench as follows:
    I think in this particular case what is the final deciding factor, is
    that [Daughter] and [Mother] have known for two and a half to
    three years, maybe longer, that [Father’s] defense to their request
    to college expenses was the law as established in the McKay case
    [McKay v. McKay, 
    644 N.E.2d 164
     (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)] about
    the repudiation of the parent-child relationship. Early on, we can
    get into all kind of interesting arguments as to who started this,
    but it would have been extremely simple if she desired and had
    any desire for a relationship for [Daughter] to reach out, if
    nothing more than to send a birthday card, or a Christmas card,
    or her grades, or copies of her diplomas, or anything else that she
    was doing, but she chose not to. I think that confirms the
    contention, [Father’s] contention from the beginning, that she
    has in fact repudiated the parent-child relationship between her
    and him. I think under the, under the McKay case, [Father] has
    not [sic] obligation then to provide college expenses and we will
    show that [Mother’s] Motion for College Expenses is denied.
    Id. at 108. Mother now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    [6]   Mother argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for college
    expenses. “[I]n Indiana, ‘there is no absolute legal duty on the part of parents
    2
    Father testified that Daughter “came over to me, uh, and said, kind of laughed and went, we’re not going,
    or we’re not having a hearing today, kind of smirky and kind of laughing about it.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 103-04.
    When questioned whether he asked Daughter “if she wanted to go get lunch or something[,]” Father replied,
    “I did not. I had a ten and a half, almost eleven-hour drive going back home. I had just driven in that
    morning and then, uh, with no court going, I had to turn around and drive all the way back.” Id. at 105.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020              Page 4 of 7
    to provide a college education for their children.’” Cunningham v. Barton, 
    139 N.E.3d 1081
    , 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting McKay, 
    644 N.E.2d at 166
    ).
    “Indiana law provides that a court may enter an educational support order for a
    child’s education at a post-secondary educational institute, but repudiation of a
    parent by a child is recognized as a complete defense to such an order.” Kahn v.
    Baker, 
    36 N.E.3d 1103
    , 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing 
    Ind. Code § 31-16-6
    -
    2(a)(1) and McKay, 
    644 N.E.2d at 166
    ), trans. denied. 3 “Repudiation is defined
    as a child’s complete refusal to participate in a relationship with his parent.”
    Cunningham, 139 N.E.3d at 1088. “In determining whether a child has
    repudiated a parent, the trial court’s focus is on the child’s actions after reaching
    the age of majority.” Id. “Just as divorcing parents run the risk of alienating
    their children, adult children who willfully abandon a parent must be deemed to
    have run the risk that such a parent may not be willing to underwrite their
    educational pursuits.” McKay, 
    644 N.E.2d at 167
     (quoting Milne v. Milne, 
    556 A.2d 854
    , 865 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989), appeal denied).
    By college age, children of divorced parents must be expected to
    begin to come to terms with the reality of their family’s situation.
    They must begin to realize that their attitudes and actions are
    their individual responsibilities. Whatever their biases and
    resentments, while one can understand how they got that way,
    3
    Because repudiation is a defense to an educational support order, Father had the burden of proof on that
    issue, contrary to what Father asserts in his brief. See Cunningham, 139 N.E.3d at 1089 (“Although Mother
    carried the burden of proof on her petition [for college expenses], Father had the burden of proof on his
    repudiation defense to show that Children had repudiated their relationship with him ….”).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020                Page 5 of 7
    when they become adults it is no longer appropriate to allow
    them to stay that way without consequence.
    Id. (quoting Milne, 556 A.2d at 861). 4
    [7]   “A trial court’s decision to deny college expenses is reviewed for an abuse of
    discretion.” Lovold v. Ellis, 
    988 N.E.2d 1144
    , 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “An
    abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is against the logic and
    effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has
    misinterpreted the law.” 
    Id. at 1150
    . “When reviewing a decision for an abuse
    of discretion, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable
    to the judgment.” 
    Id.
     “[T]his court will affirm a trial court’s decision regarding
    repudiation as long as there is evidence in the record that supports it.” 
    Id. at 1151
    .
    [8]   There is ample evidence in the record that supports the trial court’s finding of
    repudiation in this case. Mother actively thwarted Father’s relationship with
    Daughter during her childhood, and when Daughter became an adult, she took
    no steps to rekindle it. At the July 2017 hearing, Daughter claimed that she had
    unsuccessfully attempted to call Father, but she did not testify as to how
    recently or how often, and the trial court was not obligated to credit her
    testimony in any event. Father had received no information from Daughter
    4
    These excerpts from McKay refute Mother’s assertion that “the burden is upon the parent” to repair his
    relationship with his child. Appellant’s Br. at 13.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020                 Page 6 of 7
    regarding her college education and was not willing to help pay for it at that
    time, but he expressed an interest in renewing their relationship. Over the next
    three years, however, Daughter made absolutely no effort to do so. Based on
    the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
    finding that Daughter repudiated her relationship with Father. Therefore, we
    affirm its denial of Mother’s motion for college expenses.
    [9]   Affirmed.
    Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-1340 | December 23, 2020   Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20A-DR-1340

Filed Date: 12/23/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021