Justin Howard Suedmeyer v. Julie Louise Suedmeyer (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 17, 2018
• Docket: 65A01-1711-DR-2789
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 17 2018, 7:51 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Adam J. Farrar Thomas A. Massey Mt. Vernon, Indiana Evansville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Justin Howard Suedmeyer, May 17, 2018 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 65A01-1711-DR-2789 v. Appeal from the Posey Circuit Court Julie Louise Suedmeyer, The Honorable James M. Appellee-Plaintiff Redwine, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 65C01-1510-DR-362

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Justin H. Suedmeyer (Father) and Julie L. Suedmeyer (now Maddix) (Mother)

were previously married and have one child, L.S., in common. In January

2016, the parties entered into a mediated agreed final decree of dissolution of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 1 of 5 marriage (the Agreed Decree), which the trial court accepted. The Agreed

Decree granted Mother legal and physical custody of L.S. and Father parenting

time in excess of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (the Guidelines).

Thereafter, in July 2017, Mother filed a petition seeking, among other things,

modification of Father’s parenting time. Following a hearing, the trial court

modified Father’s parenting time, reducing it to that provided by the

Guidelines. Father now appeals.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] L.S. was born in December 2011, during Mother and Father’s marriage.

Mother and Father separated in September 2015, and their marriage was

dissolved on January 20, 2016, just after L.S. turned four years old.

[4] The Agreed Decree granted Mother legal and physical custody of L.S. With

respect to parenting time, the Agreed Decree provided in relevant part:

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing (including text and e-mail), [Father] shall have parenting time with the child during the school year on alternating weekends commencing on Friday after school at an agreeable time and continuing [to] Monday morning. Also, on Wednesdays overnight and on the off-week (the week following [Father’s] weekend parenting time), on Thursdays overnight as well. This results in [Father] having six (6) overnights and [Mother] having eight (8) overnights out of each two (2) week period.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the parties shall follow the [Guidelines] for Holidays, special occasions and Summer parenting time, with the parties agreeing to a week- on/week-off schedule such that [Mother] will have approximately the week before school starts.

Appendix Vol. 2 at 12. The parties followed this parenting-time schedule for

about a year and a half while L.S. attended preschool.

[5] On June 2, 2017, Mother filed a petition for modification, which was amended

the following month. In relevant part, Mother sought a reduction in Father’s

parenting time during the school year because L.S. was about to start

kindergarten. The parties failed to resolve the matter at mediation, so the trial

court held a hearing on August 29, 2017.

[6] Mother and Father both testified at the evidentiary hearing. Mother proposed

changing Father’s parenting time during the school year to every Tuesday from

4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and alternating weekends from Friday afternoon through

Sunday at 6:00 p.m., which is equivalent to the Guidelines. In Mother’s

opinion, this change was in L.S.’s best interests because “[L.S.] needs a stable

consistent routine, and it is in her best interest to spend her overnights when she

is in school at [Mother’s] house.” Transcript at 11. Mother also noted Father’s

pattern of lying to her, including about where and with whom he was living.

She also presented an exhibit indicating that Father had lived at five different

addresses in Evansville since the Agreed Decree. Mother, on the other hand,

still lived in the marital residence in Mount Vernon. Mother testified that she

was not trying to punish Father and explained: “I am here because I believe it is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5 in the best interest of [L.S.] to have stability, stable routine with her beginning

school. Education is very important to me and I want her to have the best start

in her educational life.” Id. at 17. L.S. started full-day kindergarten in August

2017.

[7] During his brief testimony, Father acknowledged lying to Mother and that he

had made mistakes but argued that he was not a “bad dad.” Id. at 22. Father

also questioned Mother’s motives for seeking the modification.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted Mother’s petition with

respect to parenting time. The court noted, “with [L.S.] starting school, it really

does work out better to follow the guidelines.” Id. at 26. Given the change in

parenting time, the trial court also issued a new support order, with Father

paying $35 per week in child support. Father filed an unsuccessful motion to

correct error and now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[9] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion “in ordering the

modification of the existing custody order.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. The trial

court, however, did not modify custody. It modified parenting time. See Moell

v. Moell, 84 N.E.3d 741, 744 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (addressing the differences

between modification of custody and modification of parenting time).

[10] Our standard of review in cases involving a modification of parenting time is

well-settled. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5 credibility. Id. at 745. We grant latitude and deference to the trial court and

will reverse only upon a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Id. No abuse

will be found if there is a rational basis in the record supporting the trial court’s

determination. Id. “[I]it is not enough that the evidence might support some

other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by

appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Id. (quoting Duncan v. Duncan,

843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied).

[11] “[P]arenting time may be modified ‘whenever modification would serve the

best interests of the child.’” Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104, 111 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2012) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2). The evidence favorable to the

judgment is that Father has experienced significant impermanence in housing

since the Agreed Decree and had not always been honest with Mother

regarding where he was living and, more importantly, where L.S. was staying

while in his care. Moreover, Mother opined that with L.S. starting full-time

kindergarten, it was in L.S.’s best interests to have stability and a consistent

routine on school nights. This evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion

that modifying Father’s parenting time is in L.S.’s best interests.

[12] Judgment affirmed.

[13] Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5