Karen Fielder v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 2, 2017
• Docket: 29A02-1609-MI-2200
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Mar 02 2017, 9:57 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Karen Fielder Ryan G. Liffrig Westfield, Indiana Alexander P. Pinegar Church Church Hittle + Antrim Noblesville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Karen Fielder, March 2, 2017 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 29A02-1609-MI-2200 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit Court Hamilton Southeastern Schools, The Honorable Paul A. Felix, Appellee-Defendant Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29C01-1606-MI-5924

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 4 [1] Karen Fielder’s children attend Hamilton Southeastern (HSE) schools. In

2011, Fielder filed a petition to dissolve her marriage and has been involved in a

contentious custody dispute with her ex-husband since that time. The

dissolution court has granted physical and legal custody to the children’s

father.1 Fielder has requested that HSE list her as an emergency contact—

someone who is permitted to pick up the children from school—in school

records and that she be allowed to eat lunch with her children on school days

when the court has not granted her parenting time with her children. HSE

denied both requests absent an order from the dissolution court that would

authorize these actions. Fielder filed a complaint seeking to force HSE to

comply with these requests; the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Indiana Trial Rule

12(B)(6).

[2] The first basis of Fielder’s complaint is the Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. FERPA is enforced by the United

States Department of Education, and schools that do not comply with its

requirements (related to student educational records) can lose federal funding.

An individual has no right of action under FERPA; instead, only the Secretary

of Education may enforce its provisions. E.g., Norris v. Bd. of Educ., 797 F.

1 Until very recently, the dissolution court did not even authorize Fielder to have unsupervised parenting time with her children.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Supp. 1452, 1465 (S.D. Ind. 1992). Therefore, the trial court properly

concluded that this claim offers no relief to Fielder.

[3] The second basis of the complaint is Indiana Code section 20-33-7-2, which

states that a school “must allow a custodial parent and a noncustodial parent of

a child the same access to their child’s education records” absent a court order

to the contrary. Fielder does not allege that she has not been provided the same

access to the children’s school records as their father. As a result, the trial court

properly concluded that this claim offers no relief to Fielder.

[4] Finally, we infer that Fielder may be arguing that the Indiana Parenting Time

Guidelines require HSE to comply with her requests. Initially, we note that the

Guidelines are merely guidelines—and, indeed, the dissolution court in this

case did not follow the Guidelines, affording Fielder substantially less parenting

time than the Guidelines suggested. Furthermore, the Guidelines are applicable

to cases involving custody and parenting time. Fielder has offered no

authority—and we can find none—suggesting that the Guidelines are somehow

applicable and binding on non-parties to a custody suit or that the Guidelines

provide a private right of action to sue a non-party for failing to comply with

part of the guidelines. Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that

this claim offers no relief to Fielder.

[5] In sum, the trial court did not err by concluding that Fielder’s complaint does

not state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Unless and until the

dissolution court enters an order authorizing HSE to list Fielder as an

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 3 of 4 emergency contact and/or to have lunch with her children at school, HSE is

not in the wrong by refusing to comply with those requests.

[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 4 of 4