ILNews

Court of Appeals orders trial court to re-evaluate child support order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the part of a custody order modifying child support, finding the trial court miscalculated the mother’s current income and made other errors.

Both Daniel and Tamara Sandlin appealed the modified custody order entered in September 2011. The order modified Daniel Sandlin’s weekday parenting time, described the parties’ financial circumstances, and modified child support.

Daniel Sandlin argued on appeal that the trial court improperly failed to conclude Tamara Sandlin voluntarily left her former job and thus failed to impute income to her; that the court miscalculated her current income; that the court failed to explicitly order that Daniel Sandlin cease paying his ex-wife a clothing allowance for their three children; and that the trial court incorrectly determined the number of overnights for which he should receive parenting time credit toward his child support obligations.

Tamara Sandlin agreed with her ex-husband’s assessment of and challenge to the determination of his parenting time credit and asked the Court of Appeals to make the correction without resorting to remand.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court correctly did not impute income to Tamara Sandlin. Her decision to quit her job and start her own business was not because she wanted to avoid significant child support obligations, but because of a change in job duties and pay at her previous employer, the opinion states.

But the court did fail to calculate her current income based on the evidence and failed to explicitly order that Daniel Sandlin cease paying his ex-wife a clothing allowance. Also, based on the parties’ apparent appellate agreement, Daniel Sandlin’s parenting time credit should be reduced from 181 overnights to 113 overnights.

 

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT