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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

LEONARD J. GULLOTA, II ELIZABETH A. BELLIN

Elkhart, Indiana WILLIAM J. COHEN

Cohen Law Offices

Elkhart, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CAROL SHOWALTER, )

)

Appellant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 20A03-1107-DR-332

)

DONALD SHOWALTER, )

)

Appellee-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Steven Bowers, Judge

Cause No. 20D02-0806-DR-133

February 22, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Carol Showalter appeals the denial of her motion to correct error challenging the 

trial court’s order on various outstanding child support issues raised by Carol and her exhusband, Donald. We remand.

Issues

Carol raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. whether the trial court properly calculated Donald’s 

parenting time credit and resulting child support 

obligation; and

II. whether the trial court erroneously failed to address the 

issue of the parties’ son’s contribution toward his postsecondary education expenses.

Facts

Carol and Donald, who have four children, were divorced in 2004. In 2009, the 

parties began litigating various issues related to custody and child support. Some issues 

were resolved by settlement agreement and others were addressed at an evidentiary 

hearing held on June 29, 2010, and July 23, 2010. At the time of the hearing, the 

couples’ oldest child, Nicole, had graduated from college, their second oldest child,

Brandt, was a college student, and their youngest two children, T.S. and K.S., were in 

high school. 

At the hearing, six child support worksheets were presented to the trial court and, 

according to Donald’s attorney, three covered all four children and three covered only 

Brandt, T.S., and K.S. The only difference between the various worksheets was the 

amount of parenting time credit awarded to Donald. The various worksheets provided for 
3

parenting time credit calculations based on zero to fifty-one overnights, fifty-two to fiftyfive overnights, or ninety-six to 100 overnights. All six worksheets showed an 

adjustment for post-secondary education expenses, calling for an increase of Donald’s 

obligation by $12.60 per week and an increase of Carol’s obligation by $14.90 per week.

On March 10, 2011, the trial court entered an order finding Nicole was 

emancipated. The order also provided in part:

19. Husband has exercised parenting time with [T.S.], but 

on something less than the full amount of parenting time. 

[T.S.] has been with Husband on approximately seventy (70) 

times in a one (1) year period. [K.S.] has spent the night with 

her father on February 9, 2008. Brandt has not spent nights 

with his father since college.

20. Husband sent a rent check to Brandt at college. Brandt 

did not cash the check immediately and by the time he did so, 

the account was closed.

21. When Husband was advised the check was not 

honored, he made payment to Brandt. There is no evidence 

that Husband intentionally failed to pay.

22. As of the hearing date, Husband is current on child 

support and college expenses.

23. The current child support order is one hundred and 

forty dollars ($140.00) per week.

24. The Court adopts the Child Support Obligation 

Worksheet number two (2) calling for Husband to pay child 

support in the sum of $192 per week.

25. Husband failed to pay post-secondary education 

expenses for Brandt as agreed by the parties and ordered by 

the Court.

26. Wife has incurred attorney fees in bringing her Rule to 

Show Cause.
4

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court now ORDERS:

That the Husband’s child support obligation be 

modified to $175 per week retroactive to April 27, 2009. 

This support order is further based upon the child support 

obligation worksheets submitted by the parties, blended to 

account for the fact that the children spend varying amounts 

of time with their parents. . . .

App. pp. 62-63. Child Support Obligation Worksheet number 2 was based on Donald 

receiving parenting time credit in the amount of $24.95 per week for fifty-two to fiftyfive overnights.

On April 8, 2011, Carol filed a motion to correct error challenging the trial court’s 

calculation of child support and the trial court’s failure to address Brandt’s contribution 

toward his post-secondary education expenses. A hearing on the motion was held on 

May 13, 2011. On July 8, 2011, after the motion to correct error was deemed denied, 

Carol filed her notice of appeal.

Analysis

I. Parenting Time Credit

Carol argues that the trial court improperly awarded Donald parenting time credit 

for fifty-two to fifty-five overnights and reduced his child support obligation from 

$192.00 to $175.00 after finding that only one child had visited with Donald 

approximately seventy times. “A trial court’s calculation of child support is 

presumptively valid.” Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008). “We will 

reverse a trial court’s decision in child support matters only if it is clearly erroneous or 

contrary to law.” Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)). A decision is clearly erroneous if it 
5

is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. 

Id. In reviewing a trial court’s formal findings, we are not at liberty simply to determine 

whether the facts and circumstances contained in the record support the judgment. Id. 

Rather, the evidence must support the findings made by the trial court and the findings in 

turn must support the judgment. Id. If the findings and conclusions entered by the trial 

court, even when construed most favorably toward the judgment, are clearly inconsistent 

with it, the decision must be set aside regardless of whether there was evidence adduced 

at trial that would have been sufficient to sustain the decision. Id. 

“Because calculating the amount of financial burden alleviated by an overnight 

visit is difficult, the guidelines provide a standardized parenting time credit formula.” Id.

at 1048. “[I]f after calculating the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation the 

court concludes that in a particular case application of the guideline amount would be 

unreasonable, unjust, or inappropriate, the court may deviate from that amount by 

entering a written finding articulating the factual circumstances supporting that 

conclusion.” Id. (citing Ind. Child Support Rule 3); see also Ind. Child Support Guideline 

6 cmt. (“If the court determines it is necessary to deviate from the parenting time credit, it 

shall state its reasons in the order.”).

“According to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, parenting time credit begins 

at fifty-two overnights annually.” Hartley v. Hartley, 862 N.E.2d 274, 286 (Ind. Ct. App.

2007) (citing Child Supp. G. 6). If a parent has fewer than fifty-two overnights annually, 

then that parent is not entitled to a parenting time credit. Id. “The Child Support 

Guidelines offer no direction for calculating parenting time credit when a parent spends 
6

overnights with fewer than all of his children.” Id.; see also In re Marriage of Blanford,

937 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“[T]he Guidelines presume that each child 

will have the same number of overnight stays with the non-custodial parent.”). 

Here, the trial court found that Donald had seventy overnights with T.S. in a one 

year period, had no overnights with K.S. since February 9, 2008, and had no overnights 

with Brandt since he started college. The trial court adopted Child Support Obligation 

Worksheet number 2, which included a parenting time credit for Donald in the amount of 

$24.95 for fifty-two to fifty-five overnights and called for Donald to pay child support in 

the amount of $192.00 per week. The trial court then modified Donald’s child support 

obligation to $175.00 per week, explaining, “This support order is further based upon the 

child support obligation worksheets submitted by the parties, blended to account for the 

fact that the children spend varying amounts of time with their parents.” App. p. 63. 

Donald appears to argue that the trial court’s decision can be affirmed because he 

was available for overnight visitations with K.S. and because he had additional nonovernight visits with T.S. Although it may have been permissible for the trial court to 

consider these factors, the trial court did not enter findings explaining that it had taken 

these factors into account in calculating Donald’s parenting time credit. In the absence of 

such findings, we cannot affirm the trial court’s child support obligation on those bases. 

Donald also argues that two children having fifty-two overnights is the 

mathematical equivalent of one child having seventy overnights for purposes of parenting 

time credit. Even assuming that it is appropriate to compare the parenting time credit in 
7

this manner, Donald’s argument does not account for the trial court’s further reduction of 

his child support obligation from $192.00 to $175.00 per week. 

Simply put, we cannot reconcile the trial court’s finding that Donald had a total of 

seventy overnights with one of his three children, its finding that it was adopting Child 

Support Obligation Worksheet number 2, which called for Donald to pay $192.00 per 

week in child support based on fifty-two to fifty-five overnights, and the portion of its 

order further reducing Donald’s support obligation to $175.00 based on the blending of 

the various worksheets, which were based on different numbers of overnights. Contrary 

to Donald’s assertion, the trial court’s order does not sufficiently explain its parenting 

time credit calculation. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to specifically explain 

its reasons for calculating Donald’s child support obligation of $175 per week, including 

the number of overnights for each child for which Donald is entitled to parenting time 

credit. If it is necessary to recalculate Donald’s child support obligation, any such 

recalculation also should be supported by a specific explanation. 

II. Brandt’s Contribution to Post-Secondary Education Expenses

Apparently, the parties had previously agreed that Brandt would pay the first 25% 

of his post-secondary education expenses and that they would proportionally split the 

remaining expenses. Brandt receives a scholarship of $4,000.00 per semester through a 

ROTC program. Brandt must repay the scholarship if he does not complete four and half 

years in the Marines after graduating. At the hearing, Carol argued that these benefits 

should count toward Brandt’s 25% contribution. Donald argued that the ROTC 

scholarship should not count toward Brandt’s 25% contribution and that Brandt should be 
8

responsible for the first 25% of any expenses not covered by the ROTC scholarship. 

Although the trial court addressed another issue related to Brandt’s post-secondary 

education expenses, it did not address this issue.

On appeal, Donald argues, “Since the money provided by the ROTC did not have 

to be paid back so long as Brandt commits to the Marines, both parents and Brandt 

benefit from this form of scholarship.” Appellee’s Br. p. 10. According to Donald, it is 

therefore unnecessary to modify the post-secondary education worksheet. In making this 

argument, Donald relies on Indiana Child Support Guideline 8(b), which provides in part:

If the court determines that an award of post-secondary 

educational expenses is appropriate, it should apportion the 

expenses between the parents and the child, taking into 

consideration the incomes and overall financial condition of 

the parents and the child, education gifts, education trust 

funds, and any other education savings program. The court 

should also take into consideration scholarships, grants, 

student loans, summer and school year employment and other 

cost-reducing programs available to the student. These latter 

sources of assistance should be credited to the child’s share of 

the education expense unless the court determines that it 

should credit a portion of any scholarships, grants and loans 

to either or both parents’ share(s) of the education expense.

(Emphasis added.) Apparently referring to the reduction from $192.00 to $175.00, 

Donald goes on to argue that the trial court properly adjusted both parent’s child support 

obligation as a result of the scholarship Brandt receives. 

Even assuming this was the trial court’s intention, its order is not clear, and we 

remand for the trial to address this issue. On remand, in the absence of a determination 

by the trial court that Carol and Donald should be credited for a portion of the ROTC 
9

scholarship, the ROTC scholarship should be credited toward Brandt’s share of education 

expenses. 

Conclusion

We remand for the trial court to explain its calculation of the parenting time credit 

and, if necessary, to recalculate the parenting time credit and Donald’s child support 

obligation. We also remand for the trial court to address the issue of whether Brandt’s 

participation in ROTC should be credited toward his share of post-secondary education 

expenses. 

Remanded.

KIRSCH, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.