Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Susan Wilkie

Susan Wilkie Law

Evansville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tricia Wallerstedt,

Appellant,

v.

Christopher Wallerstedt,

Appellee.

June 30, 2016

Court of Appeals Cause No.

82A04-1511-DR-1987

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jeff Tornatta, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

82D06-0408-DR-860 

Barnes, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 12

Case Summary

[1] Tricia Wallerstedt (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s modification of child 

custody and child support. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Issues

[2] Mother raises several issues, which we restate as:

I. whether the trial court properly modified child 

custody; and

II. whether the trial court properly modified the 

child support order.

Facts

[3] Mother was married to Christopher Wallerstedt (“Father”), and the couple had 

two children, Ja.W. and Jo.W. The couple’s marriage was dissolved in 

December 2004, and Mother was granted sole physical and legal custody of the 

children. At that time, Father was awarded supervised visitation because a 

protective order had been issued against Father due to domestic violence. In 

2008, Mother and Father reconciled. In September 2010, Mother and the 

children moved to Virginia Beach, Virginia, to help her brother. Mother and 

Father planned that Father would join Mother and the children in Virginia after 

he finished his schooling. At some point, however, the parties’ relationship 

deteriorated, and Father never moved to Virginia with Mother and the children. 

Father subsequently remarried and had another child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 12

[4] In July 2014, Father filed a petition for contempt regarding parenting time. The 

parties reached a parenting time agreement, and Father dismissed the petition 

in August 2014. However, in October 2014, Father filed another contempt 

petition. In December 2014, Mother and the children returned to Evansville 

and began staying with Mother’s family so that Mother could attend the court 

hearings without driving back and forth from Virginia. In April 2015, Father 

filed a petition to modify custody and an objection to Mother’s relocation to 

Virginia. The trial court held a hearing on the pending matters, and Father 

withdrew his contempt petition. In August 2015, the trial court entered the 

following order:

There has been a substantial and continuing change, including 

but not limited to, Mother’s relocation with the children to 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. Her move has made it difficult for the 

Father to have regular and consistent contact with the children. 

It is in the best interest of the children that the Mother resides in 

the Evansville area. While the Court does not modify custody, it 

is entering this order after the Mother reluctantly advised she will 

move back to Evansville.

Parties shall have joint legal custody with the Mother to have 

primary physical custody. Mother is to obtain her own residence 

(she currently is residing with family). The children are to attend 

a regular school setting. However, because both children have 

attended Independent Educational Programs, it may include 

some on-line schooling, if deemed appropriate by the school and 

both parents. Both children shall continue with counseling.

Father shall have parenting time every Friday from after school 

or work until Sunday at 6 p.m., except the weekend he works on 

Saturday. He shall enjoy an overnight during the week to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 12

coincide with his day off. Since this results in the Father having 

most weekends, if the Mother’s family has a special event, the 

Father should afford her the opportunity to have the children. 

Father shall enjoy parenting time at all other times agreed upon 

and shall have an additional week when he is not working. Until 

the relationship between [Ja.W.] and other members of the 

Father’s household improves, [Ja.W.] is not to be in Father’s 

home when the Father is not present. Court leaves to the parties’

good judgment, as to when overnights with [Ja.W.] and the 

Father are appropriate.

Father is ordered to financially assist the Mother in moving her 

belonging[s] to Evansville and setting up her household. Father 

shall pay support in the amount of $100.00 per week consistent 

with the attached CSPW, effective 08/14/15. Mother to pay the 

first $692.00 of uninsured medical expenses annually. 

Thereafter, Father to pay 63% and Mother 37%. Mother’s 

request for attorney fees is denied.

App. pp. 8-9.

[5] Mother filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted in part 

because it found that Father’s income was calculated incorrectly on the child 

support worksheet. The trial court modified Father’s child support obligation 

to $154 per week effective October 23, 2015. Mother now appeals.

Analysis

[6] We initially note that Father did not file an appellee’s brief. When an appellee 

fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments 

for him, and we apply a less stringent standard of review with respect to 

showings of reversible error. Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249, 1255 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 12

Ct. App. 2010). That is, we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie 

error, which is an error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it. Id.

[7] The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusion thereon. Pursuant to 

Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the reviewing court will “not set aside the findings or 

judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the 

opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” D.C. v. 

J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. 2012). Where a trial court enters findings sua 

sponte, the appellate court reviews issues covered by the findings with a twotiered standard of review that asks whether the evidence supports the findings, 

and whether the findings support the judgment. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 

(Ind. 2014). Any issue not covered by the findings is reviewed under the 

general judgment standard, meaning a reviewing court should affirm based on 

any legal theory supported by the evidence. Id.

[8] Our courts have expressed a “preference for granting latitude and deference to 

our trial judges in family law matters.” T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011). “Our supreme court has recently re-emphasized this principle, 

stating that we afford such deference because of trial judges’ ‘unique, direct 

interactions with the parties face-to-face.’” Id. (quoting Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 

499, 502 (Ind. 2011)). “[O]n appeal it is not enough that the evidence might 

support some other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion 

contended for by the appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Best, 941 

N.E.2d at 503. We cannot weigh the evidence but must consider it in a light 

most favorable to the judgment. Id. An appellate court may not substitute its 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 12

own judgment for that of the trial court if any evidence or legitimate inferences 

support the trial court’s judgment. Id.

I. Modification/Relocation

[9] Mother makes several arguments related to the modification and relocation 

statutes. Mother first argues that the relocation statutes are inapplicable here 

because Mother and Father made a joint decision to move to Virginia and 

Father abandoned Mother and the children when he did not move with them. 

Mother also argues that Father’s failure to object to the move to Virginia from 

September 2010 to April 2015 resulted in an acquiescence to the move. Finally, 

Mother argues that the trial court erred by modifying custody and by ordering 

her to move out of her parents’ residence.

[10] In Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008), our supreme court discussed 

the relationship between the custody modification statute and the relocation 

statutes. The general provision governing custody modification is found in 

Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21. Modifications are permitted only if the 

modification is in the best interests of the child and there has been “a substantial 

change” in one or more of the following factors:

(1) The age and sex of the child.

(2) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents.

(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to 

the child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years 

of age.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 12

(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:

(A) the child’s parent or parents;

(B) the child’s sibling; and

(C) any other person who may significantly affect the 

child’s best interests.

(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s:

(A) home;

(B) school; and

(C) community.

(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by 

either parent.

Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(a); Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8. 

[11] On the other hand, the relocation of a parent is governed by Indiana Code 

Chapter 31-17-2.2. Under Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-5(c), the relocating 

individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good 

faith and for a legitimate reason. If the relocating individual meets that burden 

of proof, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the 

proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(d). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 12

In the case of a proposed relocation, the trial court must take into account the 

following factors in determining whether to modify a custody order:

(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.

(2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating 

individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent 

visitation.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the 

nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable 

parenting time and grandparent visitation arrangements, 

including consideration of the financial circumstances of 

the parties.

(4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the 

relocating individual, including actions by the relocating 

individual to either promote or thwart a nonrelocating 

individual’s contact with the child.

(5) The reasons provided by the:

(A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and

(B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of 

the child.

(6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 12

[12] Our supreme court has held that the relocation statute incorporates all of the 

modification of custody considerations “but adds some new ones.” Baxendale, 

878 N.E.2d 1257. The relocation statutes do “not necessarily require a 

substantial change” in one of the modification factors. Id. Relocation “may or 

may not warrant a change of custody.” Id.

[13] Mother argues that Father acquiesced to the relocation and cannot now 

challenge it. We addressed a similar argument in Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. There, the mother moved approximately 

three hours away with the child but failed to file a notice of relocation, and the 

father did not object to the relocation until the child was ready to start 

kindergarten nearly two years later. We noted that both the mother and the 

father had failed to comply with the relocation statutes. The mother should 

have provided notice of the relocation, and the father should have filed an 

earlier objection. We concluded, however, that the father had acquiesced to the 

mother’s relocation. Consequently, we found that the modification statute, not 

the relocation statute, supplied the factors that the trial court should have 

considered in determining whether to modify custody. We concluded there 

was “a sufficient change in circumstances to support a custody modification,”

and modification was in the child’s best interest. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d at 1193-94. 

[14] Similarly, here, Mother and the children moved to Virginia in September 2010. 

Although Father was supposed to move with them after he finished his 

schooling, he eventually decided not to make the move. Father did not object 

to the relocation until April 2015. Given Father’s long acquiescence in the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 10 of 12

relocation, we conclude that, as in Jarrell, the custody modification statute, not 

the relocation statutes, are applicable here.

[15] The trial court concluded that a substantial change had occurred because it had 

become difficult for Father to have regular and consistent contact with the 

children. The relocation had clearly resulted in a significant change in the 

interaction and interrelationship of the children with Father. The guardian ad 

litem (“GAL”) testified that the distance created “a real problem for these 

children.” Tr. p. 14. Ultimately, the GAL recommended that Father have 

custody of the children because his household was more stable. However, the 

GAL acknowledged that the children were very close to Mother and needed “a 

lot of time” with Mother. Id. 

[16] Rather than follow the GAL’s custody recommendation, the trial court 

suggested that Mother stay in Evansville instead of returning to Virginia. The 

trial court recognized that Mother could return to Virginia, but believed that 

regular, consistent contact with both parents was in the children’s best interest. 

Mother reluctantly agreed that she was willing to move back to Indiana rather 

than change physical custody to Father. 

[17] The trial court made extensive comments after the parties presented evidence. 

In particular, the trial court was “really concerned” about Ja.W. Tr. p. 176. 

Ja.W. has struggled significantly with reading, getting along with other children 

at school, and adjusting to staying with Father and stepmother for extended 

periods over the summer. Jo.W. was described as overly accommodating and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 11 of 12

“ghostlike.” Id. at 127. Mother had home-schooled the children in Virginia, 

and they were enrolled in an on-line school in Indiana. However, the trial court 

and the GAL both recommended that the children attend public school. Given 

the significant distance between Father and the children and the children’s 

struggles, the trial court’s conclusion that there was a substantial change in one 

of the custody modification factors and that a change in custody was in the 

children’s best interest is not clearly erroneous.

[18] Finally, Mother challenges the trial court’s order that Mother obtain her own 

residence. Mother contends that ordering her to move is “an infringement on a 

fundamental right.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20. Mother moved back to Indiana with 

the children to participate in the court hearings. However, she maintained her 

housing in Virginia, and she had to live with family in Indiana. She and the 

children were living with her parents, her brother, his wife and three children,

and her sister and her two children in a three bedroom, one bathroom house. 

Mother, grandmother, and Jo.W. were sharing a bed, and Ja.W. was sleeping 

on a cot. The trial court recognized that it would take some time for Mother to 

get established and find housing for herself and the children, but encouraged 

Mother to start moving toward that goal. Given the overcrowding at Mother’s 

current housing, we cannot say that the trial court’s order is clearly erroneous.

II. Child Support

[19] Mother argues that the trial court erred when it modified the child support 

order. On August 10, 2015, the trial court issued its order regarding custody 

and child support. Mother filed a motion to correct error regarding the child 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1511-DR-1987 | June 30, 2016 Page 12 of 12

support order, and the trial court corrected the error on October 23, 2015. The 

trial court, however, made the effective date of the new child support order 

October 23, 2015, instead of August 10, 2015. Mother argues that the child 

support order should have been effective August 10, 2015. 

[20] A trial court has discretion to make a modification of child support relate back 

to the date the petition to modify is filed, or any date thereafter. Becker v. Becker, 

902 N.E.2d 818, 820 (Ind. 2009). However, when the trial court failed to make 

the child support correction retroactive to the original August 2015 order, 

Mother was unfairly penalized by the loss of the three months of increased child 

support. We conclude that when the trial court corrected the calculation error 

in the August child support calculation, it should have made the revised child 

support order effective August 10, 2015, rather than October 23, 2015. 

Conclusion

[21] The trial court’s modification of custody is not clearly erroneous, but the trial 

court abused its discretion when it modified the child support order. We affirm

in part, reverse in part, and remand.

[22] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.