Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 1 of 14

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

Allison L. Martinez Wheeler

Wheeler Law Firm, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Ryan M. Spahr

Spahr Law Office, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Paternity of 

A.G. (Minor Child):

A.H. (Mother),

Appellant,

v.

J.G. (Father),

Appellee.

March 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JP-2304

Appeal from the Hendricks Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Daniel F. Zielinski, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32C01-1106-JP-62

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 2 of 14

Case Summary

[1] A.H. (“Mother”) challenges the modification of physical custody of her

youngest child, A.G. (“Child”), to Child’s father, J.G. (“Father”).1 We affirm.

Issues

[2] Mother presents two issues for review:

I. Whether an interim order denied her due process; and

II. Whether the custody modification order is an abuse of the 

trial court’s discretion.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Child was born in 2011, and Mother and Father executed a paternity agreement 

providing that they would share legal custody and Mother would have primary 

physical custody of Child. Father regularly exercised parenting time, 

commencing overnight visits after Child’s infancy. Father and Mother also 

began cohabitating in 2017, at a residence owned by Father, but they separated 

in 2018.

1 Child has three older half-siblings. Mother has her two older children in her physical and legal custody. 

Father’s elder child lives with Father and Father’s mother, without a court order for that custodial 

arrangement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 3 of 14

[4] On June 1, 2018, Father filed an Emergency Verified Petition for Modification 

of Custody. Additionally, he filed an objection to Mother’s relocation with 

Child to Martinsville, Indiana, a distance of twenty-five miles from Father’s 

residence. A Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) was appointed to represent Child. 

On July 30, 2018, the trial court conducted a telephonic status conference and 

the parents agreed that Child would continue to attend Mill Creek School, in 

Father’s residential district.

[5] On August 14, 2018, the GAL filed her first report. The GAL opined that the 

parents were able to cooperatively co-parent (despite some conflict and room 

for improvement), and the GAL would have been inclined to recommend equal 

parenting time, had there not been a relocation concern. She observed that the 

parents had recently ended their cohabitation, and Mother had experienced 

“recent residential instability and current financial instability.” (App. Vol. II, 

pg. 34.) The GAL concluded, 

Ultimately, this case is very difficult to determine whether or not

[Child] should be in Mother or Father’s primary physical custody 

given the distance between their homes. If pressed, GAL has 

enough hesitation regarding Mother’s residential and financial 

stability and moving [Child] to yet another school that GAL 

would likely recommend [Child] be in Father’s primary physical 

custody and attend school in Mill Creek, where he is already 

familiar with the school from past attendance. However, the 

Court may see this matter otherwise once the facts are presented 

at hearing, and therefore, GAL has provided recommendations 

for parenting time in both scenarios.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 4 of 14

Id. at 34-35. Shortly thereafter, Mother married, and she and her spouse 

purchased a residence in the Martinsville school district.

[6] On February 8, 2019, the GAL filed an updated report. She noted that Child 

had experienced behavioral problems at Mill Creek, as he had done in his prior 

school. She reiterated her opinion that Child needed a psychological evaluation 

and counseling, and again expressed difficulty with making a firm 

recommendation as to custody. She concluded with the language: “GAL 

believes the Court should adopt the parenting time schedule recommended 

under Paragraph #3 of the August 2018 recommendations to close the 2018-

2019 school year so that [Child] can hopefully feel less ‘stuck’ in the middle for 

the remainder of this school year.” Id. at 39. A custody modification hearing 

was scheduled for February 13, 2019.

[7] On February 11, 2019, Mother filed a motion for a continuance of the hearing. 

In support of the motion, she stated that: (1) Mother and Father had agreed 

with the GAL recommendation that Child complete his school year at Mill 

Creek; (2) they had agreed with the recommendation that Child complete 

school-based counseling through the Hamilton Center; and (3) “holding a 

modification hearing seems unnecessary at this time since the parties have 

agreed to keep the minor child in the recommended school for the remainder of 

the 2018-2019 school year, and that the minor child should be evaluated 

through the school; and therefore, [Mother] requests that the modification 

hearing be reset at the end of the 2018-2019 school year.” Id. at 45-46. On the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 5 of 14

following day, the trial court granted Mother’s motion and set the matter for a 

hearing to be held on May 29, 2019.

[8] Having not yet received notice of the trial court’s action, Father filed his 

objection to the motion for a continuance. According to Father, the parenting 

time schedule designating Father as the noncustodial parent was not sustainable

until the end of the school year, given the distance between the parties. He 

asked that, if the court granted Mother’s motion for a continuance, it also adopt

Paragraph 3 of the GAL’s report.

[9] After reviewing Father’s objection, the trial court issued a February 12, 2019

order that was entered into the Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”), 

directing the parents to comply with Paragraph 3 of the GAL report. The 

practical effect of this action was that, during the school year, Mother had

parenting time with Child one overnight per week and alternate weekends.

[10] On March 22, 2019, Mother filed a pro-se Motion for an Emergency Hearing. 

She advised the trial court that Child was suffering emotional harm in his 

current school placement and that her former attorney had requested the 

continuance against Mother’s wishes. The trial court ordered the parties to 

mediation but maintained the hearing setting. Subsequently, the trial court 

vacated the order for mediation, the parties engaged in and filed various 

motions related to discovery, and the trial court ordered the parties to use a coparenting messaging application. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 6 of 14

[11] On May 29, 2019, the trial court conducted the custody modification hearing, 

at which Mother, Father, and the GAL testified. On June 12, 2019, the trial 

court entered an order granting primary physical custody of Child to Father. 

Mother filed a motion to correct error, which was denied by the trial court on 

September 3, 2019.2 Mother now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

Due Process

[12] Mother contends that the order entered into the CCS on February 12, 2019 

effectively granted Father temporary physical custody of Child and did so in a 

manner that violated Mother’s right to due process. She asserts that she was 

summarily deprived of parenting time without an opportunity to be heard in a 

timely hearing.

[13] Father concedes that the trial court’s adoption of the GAL recommendation

allocated time with Child in a manner akin to awarding Father temporary 

physical custody, but he asserts that maintaining the status quo until the end of 

the school year was untenable. He describes the background for the GAL 

recommendation as follows:

2 Mother also filed an Amended Motion to Correct Error. However, an amended motion to correct error is a 

repetitive motion that does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Walters v. Austin, 968 N.E.2d 

233, 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 7 of 14

Despite attending school at Mill Creek, until February 12, 2019 

Child was still living primarily 37-45 minutes away with Mother. 

The onerous drive time was exacerbated by the fact that on 

Father’s mid-week parenting time nights, Mother would often 

insist on picking Child up from school in Clayton and taking him 

with her back to her home in Martinsville, and then require 

Father to pick Child up from Martinsville to begin his parenting 

time, only to drive Child back again to Father’s home in Clayton, 

and back yet-again to Martinsville at the conclusion of parenting 

time – all for Child to have to be driven back to Clayton for 

school in the morning.

Appellee’s Brief at 17. According to Father, once the parties agreed that Mill 

Creek was to be Child’s school for the entire school year, they had – as a 

practical matter – agreed that Father would provide Child’s primary residence

and Mother’s time with Child was necessarily diminished.

[14] Due process, although not defined, embodies a concept of “fundamental 

fairness.” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011). Because child custody 

proceedings implicate the fundamental parent-child relationship, Indiana courts 

have recognized that procedural due process must be provided to protect the 

substantive rights of the parties. Brown v. Brown, 463 N.E.2d 310, 313 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1984). In Brown, the mother had been granted custody in an ex parte 

temporary emergency order, but the cumulative effect of three procedural 

irregularities, including statutory non-compliance, required reversal of the 

custody order. See id. In Wilcox v. Wilcox, 635 N.E.2d 1131, 1136 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1994), a panel of this Court reversed a custody order where Mother 

(exercising supervised visitation) had been “effectively removed from [her] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 8 of 14

children’s lives” and the children had been “firmly entrenched in Father’s life,”

as Mother waited “for almost two years” before she had an opportunity to be 

heard.

[15] The conduct of the proceedings here was not akin to that in Brown or Wilcox. 

The trial court did not act based solely upon information from one party, as in 

an emergency ex parte order. The trial court had the benefit of the GAL report

which addressed, among other things, the matter of Mother’s relocation. 

Mother and Father had advised the trial court that they agreed with the GAL 

recommendations for Child’s school placement and counseling. A hearing had 

been set to coincide with the end of the school year. The order addressed the 

commuting burden upon Child inherent in one parent’s relocation from a 

particular school district. Mother was not effectively removed from Child’s life, 

and she was not denied the opportunity to be heard for an extended period of 

time.

[16] And even if we consider the February 12, 2019 order to be equivalent to a 

temporary change of custody absent agreement, we can provide Mother no 

relief at this juncture, apart from our review of the merits of the final custody 

decision. In Stratton v. Stratton, 834 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), 

this court held that once a final custody determination has been made, issues

regarding a determination of temporary custody are moot. As we observed in 

Stratton, because the period of temporary custody has passed and a final 

determination has been made, we cannot render effective relief when a parent is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 9 of 14

“attacking the validity of the trial court’s temporary custody determination.”

Id.

Modification

[17] A parent seeking modification of child custody bears the burden of proving that 

the existing custody order should be altered. Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 

124 (Ind. 2016). Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21 provides that a court may 

not modify a child custody order unless the modification is in the best interests 

of the child and there is a substantial change in one or more of the pertinent 

statutory factors for an initial award of custody. The factors of Indiana Code 

Section 31-17-2-8 include the following relevant here:

(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:

(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;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 10 of 14

(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 ...[.]

[18] Mother contends that the custody modification order is contrary to Child’s best 

interests and that the evidence did not show a substantial change in 

circumstances. We review a child custody determination for an abuse of 

discretion. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 893 N.E.2d 333, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In 

considering the facts and circumstances before it, and exercising its discretion, 

the trial court is not free to disregard statutory guidance. See id. Here, the trial 

court sua sponte entered findings and conclusions thereon. We will set aside a 

finding or the judgment only if it is clearly erroneous, that is, if there are no 

facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 59 

N.E.3d 343, 349 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). However, sua sponte findings control 

only with respect to the issues covered, and a general judgment standard applies 

to issues outside the findings, meaning that the reviewing court should affirm 

based on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 

123-24.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 11 of 14

[19] The order on appeal contains factual findings with respect to the parties’ 

employment and income, together with very limited findings regarding the 

interaction of the parents and their interaction with Child. Specifically, the trial 

court found that Mother had been non-compliant with a parenting time order,

had physically assaulted Father in the presence of Child, and had reported 

Father to Child Protective Services (“CPS”). The trial court stated, generically, 

that it had considered Child’s age and sex, and Mother’s “mental and 

emotional issues.” Appealed Order at 1.

[20] Mother challenges the factual finding as to her non-compliance. She observes 

that the parties’ agreement, adopted by the court in paternity proceedings, did 

not provide for overnight visits because Child was an infant. As such, Mother 

was not specifically obligated by a court order to permit Father overnight 

parenting time at all. The evidence of record indicates that Father and Mother 

had traditionally agreed upon the division of parenting time. Father testified 

that, after he and Mother ended their cohabitation, Mother was less 

cooperative. According to Father, Mother sometimes “offered more [parenting 

time]” to Father, sometimes offered less if he had “irritated her,” and

sometimes was “uncooperative with transportation.” (Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 30-31.) 

He described his parenting time as ranging from one overnight per week to two 

overnights. He testified that he sometimes enjoyed less parenting time than that 

prescribed by the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. We acknowledge that

the trial court found Mother non-compliant, but “it is well-settled that in order 

to support a modification of custody, such interference must be continuing and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 12 of 14

substantial.” Montgomery, 59 N.E.3d at 351. The testimony did not establish a 

continuing and substantial interference on Mother’s part. 

[21] As for the physical assault, the trial court was in the best position to make a 

credibility determination in the face of conflicting evidence. See Kirk v. Kirk, 

770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002) (recognizing that trial courts, unlike appellate 

courts, have the ability to observe witness demeanor and scrutinize their 

testimony as it is presented). A police report indicated that Father accused

Mother of striking him in the face, while Mother and her then-boyfriend 

reported that the encounter had involved only mutual nudging with elbows. 

Nonetheless, Father testified at the custody hearing that Mother “hit him in the 

face” with Child seated nearby in Father’s truck. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 39.) The trial 

court credited this testimony, and we do not interfere with the credibility

determination. See In re the Marriage of Sutton, 16 N.E.3d 481, 484 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014) (observing that we do not reweigh evidence nor judge credibility of 

witnesses in a child custody matter). Finally, Mother challenges the finding 

that ascribed fault to her for making unsubstantiated CPS reports. She 

complains that the trial court did not consider a report Father made to CPS

regarding Mother’s care or supervision of Child. Again, we cannot reweigh the 

evidence before the trial court. Id. 

[22] The limited findings do not specifically address Child’s familial interactions and 

his adjustment to his home, school, and community. We therefore look to the 

evidence favorable to the judgment to determine if the modification is 

supported by the evidence. Id. There was evidence that Child was bonded to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 13 of 14

each of his parents and to his siblings in both households. He participated in 

sports and spent time with both paternal and maternal grandparents. His 

behavioral problems were significant. Child had persistently exhibited lack of 

control in school settings by kicking, hitting, threatening, cursing, and 

punching. He had once stabbed a school employee with a pencil. He 

threatened to bring a gun to school and kill people. 

[23] Child was awaiting an evaluation to obtain an individualized education plan at 

Mill Creek. He was receiving psychological counseling services at Hamilton 

Center and behavioral coaching at his school. Father testified that the 

behavioral coach offered private sessions during the summer break, and Father 

intended that Child participate in the private sessions. The GAL testified that 

Child was receiving “heavy duty” services in his current school system; she 

didn’t like the idea of Child moving from school to school; she acknowledged 

that she had made a “nebulous” custody modification recommendation, but, if 

she were “pressed,” she would recommend custody be placed with Father. Id.

at 63, 72.

[24] Mother argues that Father demonstrated no change in circumstances that was 

of substantial significance, and that Child’s placement with Mother, who now 

works in a special education classroom, is in Child’s best interests. Mother

observes that Child has had behavioral problems in more than one school and 

that he could receive psychological services in her school district. We are 

mindful that “the effect on the child is what renders a change substantial or 

inconsequential.” In re Sutton, 16 N.E.3d at 485. The GAL was appointed to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JP-2304 | March 13, 2020 Page 14 of 14

represent Child’s best interests, and she expressed concern that moving Child 

from his current school would reward him for his acting out. She opined that 

either parent was fit to have physical custody of Child. However, it is not 

enough that the evidence might have supported a different conclusion. Kirk, 

770 N.E.2d at 307. Rather, we will reverse only when the evidence positively 

requires the conclusion contended for by the appellant. Id. That is not the case 

here. 

Conclusion

[25] Mother has not shown a deprivation of her due process rights, nor has she 

demonstrated an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

[26] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.