ILNews

Child support case presents issue of first impression

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was presented with an issue for the first time: whether a child support order should be reduced for the time a child is living on campus when a court has found that the child has repudiated the non-custodial parent, and on that basis refused to enter an educational support order.

Mother Shari Lovold sought contributions from her ex-husband for their son’s college expenses. After interviewing C.E. in camera, the trial court concluded that the teen had repudiated his relationship with his father. After an unpleasant visit in 2004 when C.E. was 11, father Clifford Scott Ellis did not see his son for eight years. C.E. never contacted his father, even after turning 18. The judge found the son’s comments that he did want a relationship with his father to “ring hollow” and be “highly suspect.”

The trial court did not modify Ellis’ child support obligation as Ellis had wanted. He filed a motion to correct error and requested an adjustment because he had been paying his ex-wife $60 – and not the $150 that had been ordered in 2004 – since C.E. started college. He also believed the trial court miscalculated the amount of time C.E. would live at home at 36 weeks instead of 16. The trial court granted mother’s motion to correct error regarding the support and ordered Ellis pay as if C.E. were living at home year round.

In Shari (Ellis) Lovold v. Clifford Scott Ellis, 54A01-1209-DR-410, the judges affirmed the trial court’s finding that C.E. refused to participate in a relationship with his father. Thus, the trial court didn’t err when it denied Lovold’s request for Ellis to pay toward C.E.’s college expenses.

Repudiation can prevent a parent from paying college expenses, but it is not a defense to an order for child support, the COA pointed out. While a court may order college expenses and child support, living expenses for a child living on campus should be included in the educational support order.

“We hold that living expenses for a child living on campus should similarly not be included in the child support order when, as here, the child has repudiated the parent and the parent is therefore not required to contribute to the child’s post-secondary education. To hold otherwise would render repudiation no longer a complete defense to the payment of college expenses,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote.

“We do not adopt a bright-line rule requiring the filing of both a child support obligation worksheet and a post-secondary education support worksheet because no educational support order has been entered. But the trial court must reduce child support for the time the child will be living away from home for college.”

The judges remanded for the trial court to re-calculate the support so Ellis doesn’t pay for the time C.E. lives on campus.

 

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. 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!

  2. 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.

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

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT