ILNews

Justices take child support case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to just one case last week, a not-for-publication decision out of the Indiana Court of Appeals dealing with a parent’s financial obligations to his children.

The lower appellate court held the trial court properly calculated Richard Eric Johnson’s prior uninsured health care expense obligation based on the parties’ original agreement; appropriately considered and decided parenting time; and did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to modify the parties’ agreement regarding payment of college expenses for the two children. The judges did conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in calculating Gillian Wheeler Johnson’s health insurance premium credit; in ordering Richard Johnson to pay all transportation costs for parenting time; and in failing to incorporate in its order the parties’ agreement regarding payment of extracurricular expenses.

The judges also held that although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the father is entitled to a credit for Social Security benefits the children receive, it did not correctly apply any such credit to the child support calculation. They reversed the trial court’s order with respect to these issues and remanded for the trial court to recalculate child support and amend its order consistent with this opinion.

The case is Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson, 49S05-1303-DR-199.
 
The justices denied transfer to 20 cases for the week ending March 15.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT