Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

Oliver S. Younge

Younge Law Office

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Pamela Buchanan

Buchanan & Bruggenschmidt, P.C.

Zionsville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Courtney Allen,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Jeffrey Shelburne,

Appellee-Petitioner

May 19, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

06A05-1509-DR-1399

Appeal from the Boone Superior 

Court

The Honorable J. Jeffrey Edens, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

06D02-1106-DR-96

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] C.A. (“Mother”) appeals a custody modification order granting the physical 

and legal custody of K.S. to J.S. (“Father”). Mother presents the issue of 

whether the modification order is clearly erroneous.1 We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] K.S. was born in 2010. After their 2012 divorce, Mother and Father shared the 

physical and legal custody of K.S. However, disputes arose with regard to 

K.S.’s medical care. Mother made allegations of child abuse against Father and 

Father filed petitions seeking to have Mother held in contempt of court. In 

2014, Mother filed a petition for custody modification.2

[3] The trial court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) for K.S. and ordered 

Mother to complete a psychological test. The trial court conducted three 

hearings, on November 5, 2014, April 22, 2015, and May 6, 2015. During the 

second hearing, the trial court heard evidence on Father’s emergency custody 

petition. He was granted sole medical decision-making authority with regard to 

K.S. After the final hearing, the trial court modified the existing custody order 

such that Father has the sole physical and legal custody of K.S. and Mother has 

 

1 Mother also purportedly raises an issue of whether the trial court complied with Indiana Code Section 31-

17-4-1, which concerns restriction of a non-custodial parent’s parenting time. Mother was granted parenting 

time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, without restrictions. Thus, it is readily apparent 

that the statute is not implicated by the trial court’s order.

2

Father subsequently filed his own petition for custody modification.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 3 of 7

parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The trial 

court’s decision stated that the most significant weight had been given to the 

reports of the GAL and the psychologist who conducted testing of Mother.

[4] Mother filed a motion to correct error, which was denied without a hearing. 

Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[5] We review the grant or denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of 

discretion. Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 

Also, a custody modification order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, with a 

preference for granting deference to the trial judge in a family matter. Wilson v. 

Myers, 997 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. 2013). When the trial court enters findings 

sua sponte, the findings control only as to the issues they cover, while a general 

judgment standard applies to any issue upon which the court has not found. 

Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249, 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). We will 

affirm the general judgment on any legal theory supported by the evidence, 

considering only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that 

support the findings. Id. at 1255-56. We neither reweigh the evidence nor 

judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 1256.

[6] The trial court may modify a child custody order when “(1) the modification is 

in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 4 of 7

more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 and, if 

applicable, section 8.5 of this chapter.” Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(a). The trial 

court is required to consider the factors of section 8, which include: the child’s 

age and sex; the wishes of the parent(s); the child’s wishes; the relationship the 

child has with his or her parent(s), sibling(s), and others; the child’s adjustment 

to home, school, and community; the mental and physical health of all 

involved; any evidence of domestic or family violence; and any evidence that 

the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian. I.C. § 31-17-2-8(1)-(8).

Analysis

[7] The trial court entered extensive findings articulating its reasons for the custody 

modification decision. In relevant part, the court found that both parties were 

in agreement that the joint custody arrangement should be modified; the 

parents had refused to communicate regarding K.S.’s health care needs; K.S. 

could suffer harm in the future as a result of such dysfunctional 

communication; one parent needed to be responsible for K.S.’s care; Father was 

better suited to do so; Mother had shown a pattern of being disconnected and 

perhaps delusional about K.S.’s physical health; Mother overstated the severity 

of K.S.’s physical symptoms and believed K.S. to be a special needs child; 

despite being held in contempt of court, Mother had continued to withhold 

pertinent medical information from Father; Mother had not enrolled in a 

parental advocacy program although she had agreed to do so; Father’s home 

provided a safer environment for K.S.; and Mother had not followed through 

with therapy recommendations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 5 of 7

[8] Mother’s challenge to the decision is two-fold. She argues that the trial court 

ignored favorable evidence of her parenting skills and failed to address the 

majority of the factors of Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-8. Mother describes 

herself as “proactive in facilitating the child’s progress and health.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 25-26. Indeed, there was testimony that Mother had sought appropriate 

medical care for K.S. and that he has benefitted from physical therapy and 

behavioral therapy. 

[9] However, the record is replete with evidence that the parents have not 

historically communicated well in implementing medical advice. Mother has 

been found in contempt of court for refusal to include Father in medical 

decision-making. Also, she was described as being uncooperative with courtappointed professionals. A recent episode concerning duplication of a 

prescription was perceived by the trial court to be indicative of future possible 

harm to K.S. After the appointment of successive GALs, multiple contempt of 

court citations, a psychological evaluation, many DCS and police investigations 

without substantiation of abuse, and an emergency hearing, the trial court 

determined that K.S.’s best interests would be served by one parent’s 

designation as the primary decision-maker and custodian. The trial court 

concluded that Father was the parent better suited to fulfill that role.

[10] Mother’s claim that the trial court wrongly emphasized the opinion of a nonphysician psychologist while ignoring testimony from K.S.’s therapist as to 

Mother’s excellent parental participation is an invitation to reweigh the 

evidence. We decline to do so. An appellate court may not substitute its own 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 6 of 7

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

the decision. Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 503 (Ind. 2011). In short, there is 

evidence that both parents are caring and attentive to K.S.’s needs. The 

testimony of the expert and court-appointed witnesses is not without conflict. 

In light of the trial court’s unique position to personally hear and adjudge the 

credibility of each witness, “we continue to give substantial deference to the 

trial court’s determination of family law matters.” In re Visitation of L-A.D.W., 

38 N.E.3d 993, 998 (Ind. 2015).

[11] As for Mother’s insistence that the trial court erred in failing to “examine or 

address” each of the designated statutory factors, we are unpersuaded. 

Appellant’s Br. at 15. Although the trial court is to consider the relevant 

statutory factors, there is no corresponding requirement that the trial court 

articulate a specific finding with regard to each. The “crucial supporting 

findings” upon which a custody modification order will be upheld consist of a 

finding that there has been a substantial change in at least one of the statutory 

factors, and that modification is in the child’s best interests. Best, 941 N.E.2d at 

502-03.3 Such findings were made in this case, supported by the evidence and 

reasonable inferences.

Conclusion

 

3 We observe that Mother did not make a timely request for findings and conclusions pursuant to Indiana 

Trial Rule 52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A05-1509-DR-1399 | May 19, 2016 Page 7 of 7

[12] Mother has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion.

[13] Affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.