Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

SANDRA M. PASQUALE JAY T. HIRSCHAUER

Tinley Park, Illinois Hirschauer & Hirschauer

Logansport, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

SANDRA M. PASQUALE, )

)

Appellant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 09A04-1304-DR-169

)

THOMAS M. PASQUALE, )

)

Appellee-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CASS SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Christopher M. Goff, Special Judge

Cause No. 09D01-0808-DR-73

February 3, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge
2

Sandra M. Pasquale (“Sandra”) appeals from the trial court’s post-dissolution order,

contending that the trial court erred in restricting her parenting time. Finding that Sandra has 

failed to establish an abuse of discretion or any other trial court error, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sandra filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Thomas M. Pasquale

(“Thomas”) on August 26, 2008. The trial court appointed an attorney to serve as guardian 

ad litem for purposes of conducting a custody investigation and preparing a custody report. 

At the conclusion of the investigation, the guardian ad litem, deeming it a close call, 

recommended that Thomas have custody of the three minor children of the parties. A final 

hearing was conducted over the course of several days, and on February 2, 2010, the trial 

court entered its decree of dissolution in which primary physical custody of the three children 

was awarded to Sandra. 

On February 9, 2011, Sandra filed a notice of intent to relocate to an undisclosed 

location in Illinois, to which Thomas filed his objection. After the appointment of a special 

judge, the trial court appointed a new guardian ad litem. The new guardian ad litem filed her 

report recommending that the three children remain in Indiana, and that primary physical 

custody of the three children should be awarded to Thomas. A hearing was held after which 

the trial court entered its order denying Sandra’s request to relocate, granting Thomas’s 

motion for primary physical custody of the children, and awarding primary physical custody 

of the three children to Thomas. Sandra did not appeal the trial court’s order.

On July 18, 2012, Thomas filed a motion to terminate or, in the alternative, restrict 

Sandra’s parenting time with the children. Attached to Thomas’s motion was a report 
3

authored by a counselor for one of the children stating that an alternative means of contact 

with Sandra, possibly supervised visits, should be explored, as a result of the child’s distress 

experienced after an incident involving her mother at a ballpark. The motion requested the 

re-appointment of the guardian ad litem. The trial court heard preliminary evidence, the 

guardian ad litem filed her report, and a hearing was conducted after which the trial court 

took the matter under advisement. On March 7, 2013, the trial court entered its order 

concluding that Sandra’s parenting time should be supervised until Sandra had completed a 

psychological evaluation. Sandra now appeals from that order. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

“In custody and visitation matters, foremost consideration must be given to the best 

interests of the child.” Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “We 

will generally reverse child visitation decisions only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of 

discretion.” Hanson v. Spolnik, 685 N.E.2d 71, 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “We neither 

reweigh the evidence nor reexamine the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. “Rather, we will 

view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision to determine whether 

the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom support the trial court’s decision.” Id. 

Indiana Code section 31-17-4-1 defines the visitation rights of noncustodial parents as 

follows:

A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable parenting 

time rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time by the 

noncustodial parent might endanger the child’s physical health orsignificantly 

impair the child’s emotional development.

Here, the record shows that a licensed clinical social worker providing services for 
4

Sandra and Thomas’s two girls prepared a report and testified about the effect of the girls’ 

visitation with Sandra on their emotional development. He testified that both girls were 

distressed about a particular incident that occurred during their seven-year-old brother’s 

baseball game. After Sandra saw Thomas across the field at the game, Sandra took offense at 

Thomas attending a game that took place during her parenting time. Sandra stood up and 

started screaming that Thomas was a rapist and alleged that he was stalking her. Sandra did 

so in front of many adults and children, including her own, in a public place in their relatively 

small hometown. Other adults asked Sandra to sit down and remain quiet because she was 

ruining everyone else’s experience. Sandra called law enforcement officers who, after 

arriving and speaking with Thomas, determined that Thomas was not doing anything wrong. 

The social worker testified that both girls were very distressed by the event.

Additionally, the trial court had before it two reports from the guardian ad litem, in 

one of which she concluded that continued unrestricted parenting time with Sandra would 

impair the children’s emotional development. She also observed that there seemed little 

chance that Sandra and Thomas could successfully co-parent the children without trial court 

intervention. The guardian ad litem recommended in both reports that Sandra exercise 

supervised parenting time with the children until she participated in a psychological 

evaluation and parenting assessment and completed all recommendations not excluding 

counseling. 

Further, a family case manager with the Cass County Department of Child Services 

testified that she had investigated numerous complaints filed by Sandra regarding the 

children, found them all to have been unsubstantiated, and that there were no outstanding 
5

complaints under her investigation. The case manager noted one complaint involving the 

promptness, or lack thereof, with which Thomas addressed the issue of treatment of his son’s 

cavities. That complaint was determined not to rise to the level of abuse or neglect.

The testimony and exhibits offered at the hearing were considered and summarized in 

detail in the trial court’s findings supporting its order. We find that Sandra’s arguments on 

appeal challenging the trial court’s order are merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence, a 

task our standard of review forbids us to undertake. Hanson, 685 N.E.2d at 79. Sandra 

called no witnesses and offered no reports. Her evidence consisted of two photographs, 

which the trial court took into consideration. At the hearing, Sandra, who appeared pro se, 

argued with the witnesses and trial court, expressing her displeasure with those whose 

opinions differed from her own. Similarly, on appeal, Sandra points to evidence which she 

claims contradicts the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Our examination of the record, 

however, leads us to the conclusion that the trial court’s findings have support in the record, 

and those findings, in turn, support the trial court’s judgment.

The issue that Sandra designates in her brief as Issue I challenges the trial court’s 

decision to deny her February 9, 2011 petition to remove the children from Indiana to Illinois.

However, Sandra did not timely pursue an appeal from that order. “A party must file a notice 

of appeal from a final judgment within thirty days after the entry of the judgment in a trial 

court’s Chronological Case Summary, or where a motion to correct error is filed, within 

thirty days after the entry of the trial court’s ruling on that motion.” Ind. Appellate Rule 

9(A)(1). “The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite.” Walters v. 

Austin, 968 N.E.2d 233, 234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing State v. Hunter, 904 N.E.2d 371, 
6

373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)), trans. denied. If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the right to 

an appeal is forfeited. App. R. 9(A)(5). Sandra has thus forfeited her right to appeal from 

that order, and we do not consider her arguments here.

The issue Sandra designates in her brief as Issue II challenges the portion of the trial 

court’s order denying Sandra’s request for a permanent injunction against Thomas and 

Sandra’s verified motion for contempt. Sandra’s submission in that regard consists of 

citation to various statutes and case law without development of the applicability of the legal 

propositions cited to the facts in the case at bar and consist of the contents of two footnotes. 

Sandra has waived this claim as well. 

The issue Sandra designates in her brief as Issue IV challengesthe portion of the trial 

court’s order denying her motion to have the guardian ad litem removed due to alleged 

violations of professional conduct, and requiring Sandra to pay a portion of the guardian ad 

litem’s fees. Sandra, however, has failed to develop a cogent argument on these matters. 

Although she has recited various legal propositions with case citations, her argument along 

these lines is wholly undeveloped. As such, she has waived review of these issues for appeal.

See Wenzel v. Hopper & Galliher, P.C., 830 N.E.2d 996, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (failure 

to present cogent argument supported by legal authority constitutes waiver of issue for 

appellate review);see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (“The argument must contain the 

contentions of the appellant on the issues presented supported by cogent reasoning. Each 

contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or 

parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.”). 

A litigant who proceeds pro se is held to the same established rules of procedure that 
7

trained counsel is bound to follow. Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2009). “One risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he will not know how to 

accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to accomplish.” Id. Furthermore, pro 

se appellants are held to the same standards of civility and professional courtesy as admittees 

to the Indiana Bar. Boczar v. Meridian St. Found., 749 N.E.2d 87, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

The topic of standards of civility and professional courtesy leads us to comment 

further. Thomas has filed a motion to strike Sandra’s brief and appendix and to dismiss her 

appeal because of procedural defects and inappropriate argument. Sandra has filed a motion 

to dismiss Thomas’s motion to strike and dismiss. We dispose of those motions in a separate 

order. 

However, we pause to comment on the inflammatory nature of Sandra’s Appellant’s 

Brief and Appendix, in which she alleges that the guardian ad litem, Thomas, and Thomas’s 

counsel “perjured themselves countless times on the witness stand, rendering any and all 

credibility lost.” Appellant’s Br. at 8-9. In one instance, Sandra writes as follows:

This entire case was based upon subjective hearsay [AKA false allegations] 

and the use of Projection, by Thomas placing blame on his victims, then 

perpetuated down the line to; DCS, Counselor, GAL and Court, while 

objective evidence lies dormant, outside the realm of evidence-based theory 

[AKA reality] and common sense left at the door.

Id. at 10. With respect to the Appellant’s Appendix, Sandra has listed various documents 

with appropriate citation to their location in the Appendix, but has further editorialized the 

documents. For example, a no contact order appearing on page 10 is further described as 

“Thomas Pasquale charged with Domestic Battery resulting from choking and biting his wife 
8

Sandra on her face.” Appellant’s App. at i.1 

Finally, with respect to Sandra’s prayer for relief, she asks this court to grant custody 

of the three children to her, allow her to relocate with them to Illinois, terminate Thomas’s 

parental rights, hold the guardian ad litem responsible for the expenses related to the present 

appeal, and sanction the guardian ad litem for “gross misconduct and perjury.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 37. We have previously stated as follows about how discourteous and intemperate 

language does little to advance an appellant’s contention of reversible error:

For the use of impertinent, intemperate, scandalous, or vituperative language in 

briefs on appeal impugning or disparaging this court, the trial court, or 

opposing counsel, we have the plenary power to order a brief stricken from our 

files and to affirm the trial court without further ado. In the interest of 

evaluating the merits of [the Appellant’s] issues on appeal, we choose not to 

strike the Appellant’s Brief filed by [Appellant’s] counsel or any portion 

thereof. Because we choose not to exercise our discretion to strike the brief, 

however, counsel should not confuse this with approval or condoning of the 

unprofessional, disrespectful, and at times outrageous remarks and allegations 

made in the body of the brief. We appreciate vigorous advocacy, but we will 

not countenance the sort of lawyering exhibited here. We admonish counsel to 

advocate more professionally in future matters before this court.

Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citation and footnote omitted). 

As Sandra is held to the same standard as admittees to the Indiana bar, we admonish her to 

advocate her contentions more professionally in the future when choosing to proceed pro se.

Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.

 

1 The page of the Table of Contents appearing at the beginning of the Appellant’s Appendix are not 

separately paginated. The example cited appears on the first page of the table of contents which ordinarily is 

paginate with lower case roman numerals.