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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT