Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1702-DR-323 | July 5, 2017 Page 1 of 4

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

Anthony J. Saunders

New Castle, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D.P.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

A.L.,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 5, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A04-1702-DR-323

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C02-1001-DR-14

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1702-DR-323 | July 5, 2017 Page 2 of 4

[1] In April 2010, the marriage of D.P. (Father) and A.L. (Mother) was dissolved. 

One child, Da.P. (Child), was born of the marriage in October 2006. Pursuant 

to the dissolution decree, Mother was Child’s primary legal and physical 

custodian, and Father had parenting time with Child every weekend. In April 

2011, Father pleaded guilty to Class D felony sexual battery1 and is required to

register as a sex offender until 2021.

[2] On November 20, 2015, Mother filed a petition to, among other things, modify 

the parties’ parenting time arrangement. Specifically, she asked that Father’s 

parenting time be supervised by another adult. At the September 7, 2016, 

hearing on Mother’s motion, Mother testified that the two primary reasons 

supporting her modification petition are Father’s 2011 sexual battery conviction 

and an increase in negative behaviors from Child following the weekends he 

spends with Father. She testified that, after returning from parenting time with 

Father, Child frequently hits himself and makes statements about wishing 

violence on Father. Tr. p. 8. On one occasion, Child had to be admitted for 

two weeks at an inpatient mental health facility. Id.

[3] Following the hearing, the trial court granted Mother’s motion, finding that 

“there has been a continuing and substantial change in circumstances” since the 

dissolution decree was issued. Appealed Order p. 1. The trial court focused on 

Father’s 2011 conviction and the requirement that he register as a sex offender 

 

1 The victim was a 16-year-old individual who is unrelated to this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1702-DR-323 | July 5, 2017 Page 3 of 4

as the changed circumstances. The trial court then found that “[i]t is in the best 

interest of the minor child that [Father’s] overnight parenting time be suspended 

and [Father] shall have supervised visitation pursuant to the Indiana Parenting 

Time Guidelines. [Father’s] supervised visitation shall occur by an adult agreed 

upon by both parties until further Order of this Court.” Id. Father now 

appeals.

[4] A decision about parenting time requires us to give foremost consideration to 

the best interests of the child. Meisberger v. Bishop, 15 N.E.3d 653, 656 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014). In conducting our review, we will neither reweigh evidence nor 

reassess witness credibility. Id. We will reverse only where the trial court’s 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

before it or where the trial court errs as a matter of law. Id.

[5] Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2 provides as follows:

The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting 

time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests 

of the child. However, the court shall not restrict a parent’s 

parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting 

time might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly 

impair the child’s emotional development.

We have found in the past that, in ruling on a motion to modify parenting time, 

the trial court must consider and make a finding as to potential endangerment 

of the child’s physical health or significant impairment of the child’s emotional 

development. Meisberger, 15 N.E.3d at 659-60 (finding that trial court could not 

restrict incarcerated father’s parenting time with child absent specific findings 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A04-1702-DR-323 | July 5, 2017 Page 4 of 4

regarding endangerment of physical health or significant impairment of 

emotional development); Rickman v. Rickman, 993 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013) (finding that mere fact that father was incarcerated on child 

molestation charges was insufficient to deny his petition for parenting time 

modification; further findings and factual basis were needed).

[6] Here, as in Meisberger and Rickman, the trial court neglected to include a 

sufficient factual basis addressing the factors set forth in Indiana Code section 

31-17-4-2.2 While the trial court did reach a conclusion regarding the best 

interests of the child, it did not make a finding regarding endangerment of 

Child’s physical health or significant impairment of Child’s emotional 

development. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to determine and make 

one or more findings on these factors or, in its discretion, to conduct other 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is remanded with instructions.

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.

 

2 We also note that the trial court found a continuing and substantial change in circumstances. To modify 

parenting time, however, the trial court need not make such a finding, which is required only for 

modification of custody. See Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21 (requiring the trial court to find a substantial change in 

statutory factors to modify custody). Instead, the trial court should focus on Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2, 

which governs parenting time modification.