The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the modification of a child support ordering, finding that there were no substantial and continuing circumstances to justify the change.
Before beginning a relationship with Travis Maple, Danielle Maple gave birth to a son by another man. When Danielle Maple’s relationship with her son’s father ended, the trial court in 2005 used a child support obligation worksheet to calculate child support and set Maple’s legal support for her son at $121 per week.
The Maples then began a relationship and had two children before their divorce in 2009. During the subsequent proceedings, Travis Maple’s child support obligation was set at $245 per week.
In 2014, Travis Maple moved to modify the child support order and questioned the validity of the 2005 worksheet used in his ex-wife’s first child support case. Danielle Maple admitted that many of the figures in that worksheet were no longer accurate, and her support obligation to her first son was reduced to $66 per week. Travis Maple's obligation for his children was also reduced to $205 per week.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that decision in Danielle Maple v. Travis Maple, 02A03-1608-DR-1889, with Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik writing Tuesday that the changed circumstances Travis Maple relied on to justify the modification of the order were nominal and that there were not converging circumstances to create substantial and continuing circumstances that warranted the modification.
Further, Vaidik wrote that the 2005 worksheet that was used to determine Danielle Maple’s obligation to her first son remains in effect. Thus, the appellate panel reinstated the Maples’ original 2012 child support order and ordered the court to set the matter for hearing within 60 days to calculate the amount of arrearage Travis Maple owes, dating back to the implementation of the erroneous order, and to set a repayment schedule.