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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT