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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT