ILNews

Appeal questions 'enrollment,' self-supporting standards for emancipation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In tackling a child support case involving a teenager’s emancipation, Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagree on what state statute defines as “enrolled” in college. One judge believes the majority wrongly reweighed evidence in this case to come to its decision.

The 29-page opinion comes in Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver, No. 29A02-1004-DR-429, arising out of Hamilton Superior Court. Married in 1985, the couple had three children during their marriage and divorced in 1994. The father contributed to the support of both children and they were eventually emancipated by the court.

Many of the issues in this case center on the youngest daughter, who was born in 1990 and graduated from high school in 2009. The father petitioned to have her emancipated later that year after she withdrew from college courses less than two weeks after starting classes. She moved back in with the mother and stepfather and obtained a part-time job to help support herself. An emancipation hearing set for October 2010 was continued a few months, and during that time the daughter moved out of the mother’s house and rented an apartment.

The trial court determined that she was emancipated as of the September 2009 date when the father filed the petition. The court also ruled that her father didn’t have to contribute anything toward her college expenses, as she had started attending classes again.

But the Court of Appeals found the trial court erred on the emancipation date, because she was considered “enrolled” in college courses as of that September 2009 date as written in Indiana Code 31-16-6-6, known as the emancipation statute.  A provision requires that a child is eligible for emancipation if he or she is at least 18, isn’t enrolled in secondary or post-secondary school, and is capable of supporting oneself through employment. The trial court should have determined that the daughter was enrolled in college, regardless of whether she completed courses or not, Judges Michael Barnes and Nancy Vaidik found. They also determined that she wasn’t capable of supporting herself despite the jobs, because it didn’t appear she was able to make enough money or possessed job skills to earn more down the road.

Specifically, the majority noted this state’s public policy clearly requires continued child support payment until the child is no longer in actual need of that support, and the trial court in this case was wrong in deciding otherwise.

But Judge John Baker disagreed on the emancipation date because of the daughter’s “enrollment” in college courses as well as the issue of whether she was capable of supporting herself to be emancipated.

The relevant statute doesn’t define “enroll,” and this court has previously ruled that the term means “more than being involved in the application process… it means that one has been accepted to the institution and is officially registered at the institution as a student.” Judge Baker wrote that the definition that was reached in Butrum v. Roman, 803 N.E. 2d 1139, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) sometimes doesn’t go far enough, and this is one of those cases.

“Accepting such a broad definition of the term means that a student could conceivably be ‘enrolled’ in a postsecondary educational institute in perpetuity without ever actually taking classes,” he wrote, adding that he’d expand the statutory interpretation to mean one must also in good faith be attending or intending to attend classes.

Judge Baker also took issue with the appellate majority reweighing the daughter’s credibility on employment history and college courses. He also disagreed on the majority requiring the father to pay postsecondary educational expenses, given the specific facts before the lower court.

“I believe that by reversing on this issue, the majority is necessarily reweighing the evidence,” he wrote.

The appellate court also determined the lower judge incorrectly calculated child support amounts and attorneya fees. It remanded on those issues.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT