Judges split on child support modification

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues, finding their decision regarding child support promotes “formalism over fairness and legalism over common sense.”

Timothy D. Sexton challenged the denial of his petition for emancipation regarding one of his three children and for modification of child support. After divorcing, Donna Sedlak was eventually given primary physical custody of their three children and Sexton was ordered to pay child support. In 2005, Sedlak filed a petition for modification of child support claiming the 2002 order was unreasonable and asked that it be discontinued. No action was ever taken on that petition.

In 2006, the parents executed a notarized custody and child support agreement, agreeing two children would live with Sexton and neither party would pay child support. This wasn’t ever filed with the court. A couple of years later, Sexton quit his job and collected unemployment.

The trial court held a hearing on Sexton’s petition for emancipation and child support modification and found his net arrearage to be more than $28,000 and modified his child support to $117 per week back to June 2009 for his two dependent children. By this time, one child was emancipated.

In Timothy D. Sexton v. Donna M. (Sexton) Sedlak, No. 49A04-1005-DR-330, the majority rejected Sexton’s argument that his modification of child support should have dated back to September 2005 when Sedlak filed her petition for modification of child support, or to 2006 when the parties notarized an agreement on custody and child support instead of June 2009 when he filed his petition for modification. His child support order was an order in gross, which is a specified sum of undivided support for several children. In support, the judges cited Whited v. Whited, 859 N.E.2d 657, 662 (Ind. 2007), which prohibits any reduction in child support obligation unless there were no children dependent on his support who were living with Sedlak.

Judge James Kirsch dissented on this point, believing the trial court erred in finding Sexton in contempt for nonpayment of support of more than $28,000.

“Prohibiting the retroactive modification of support, particularly of a support order in gross, has the potential to lead to absurd and unfair consequences, and our Supreme Court has recognized that doing so ‘may occasionally cause inequities,’” he wrote. “This case is one of such inequities.”

He believed the rule prohibiting retroactive modifications doesn’t apply because the parties sought such a modification in 2005. Although it declined to enter an agreed entry on Sedlak’s 2005 petition, the trial court never ruled upon the petition, which remains pending. Judge Kirsch believed the trial court should modify the support order retroactive to the date of Sedlak’s petition in September 2005.

The majority also affirmed the denial of Sexton’s request to emancipate his child T.S. They did find the trial court erred in determining his child support obligation without considering T.S.’s income. They reversed the child support obligation of $117 a week and remanded for the court to determine his obligation in light of T.S.’s income.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.