ILNews

Court rules on child support, parenting time modifications

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled on a case involving parenting time and child support issues between a mother and father.

In Lorraine (Carpenter) Miller v. Karl Carpenter, No. 29A02-1107-DR-663, the court affirmed and reversed in part a decision by Hamilton Superior Judge Daniel Pfleging and Magistrate William Greenaway.

The case involves Lorraine Miller and Karl Carpenter, a couple who divorced in 2008 and agreed that the mother would have sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the two children, ages 10 and 8. The father had visitation on alternate weekends and overnight on Wednesdays. The parents agreed to follow the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines for holidays and special occasions. In calculating child support, they agreed the father would receive credit for 98 overnights, less than the actual 127 nights spent with the children.

Two years after the agreement, father petitioned for joint legal custody, an increase in parenting time and a decrease in child support. The trial court granted the father’s relief and the child support decrease was based on an increase in the mother’s income, a decrease in her child care costs and an increase in parenting time credit.

But on appeal, the panel reversed the grant of joint legal custody to the father because the evidence does not support a conclusion that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred to justify a modification of legal custody. The appellate judges upheld the trial court’s modification of parenting time because it’s in the child’s best interest.

On child support, the appellate judges determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence of imputed income was too speculative. Because more than a year had passed since the establishment of the original support order and father’s obligation deviated from the guidelines by more than 20 percent, the appeals panel found the trial court didn’t err in reducing the amount of his obligation.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT