Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 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

Laurie Baiden Bumb

Bumb & Vowels, LLP

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Kelly A. Lonnberg

Trisha S. Dudlo

Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn, 

LLP

Evansville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re the Marriage of:

J. D. S.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

B. S.,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 10, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

82A05-1407-DR-331

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court.

The Honorable Mary Margaret 

Lloyd, Judge.

The Honorable J. August Straus, 

Magistrate.

Cause No. 82D04-1307-DR-708

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 2 of 12

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Petitioner, J.D.S. (Father), appeals the trial court’s Order modifying 

his extended summer parenting time. 

[2] We remand with instructions. 

ISSUE

[3] Father raises one issue on appeal which we restate as: Whether the trial court 

abused its discretion in modifying Father’s extended summer parenting time. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Father and B.S. (Mother) (collectively, Parents) were married on March 17, 

2001. During their marriage, they had two children, S.S., born in September 

2002, and N.S., born in March 2006 (collectively, the Children). In the spring 

of 2011, Parents separated, and Father moved out of the marital home in 

Evansville, Indiana. On December 27, 2013, the trial court entered a Decree of 

Dissolution, which incorporated the Mediated Settlement Agreement

(Agreement) reached by Parents. 

[5] Pursuant to the Agreement, Mother had primary physical custody of the 

Children and Father would exercise parenting time, but Parents shared joint 

legal custody. Father would have the Children on Father’s Day, on his 

birthday, and on the 4

th of July of each year, while Mother would have the 

Children on Mother’s Day and on her birthday. As for the 2013 Christmas 

break, Parents agreed on an elaborate parenting time schedule. However, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 3 of 12

Parents agreed that the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (Guidelines) would 

apply for the 2014 Christmas break.

[6] When Parents entered into the Agreement, Father had relocated from 

Evansville to Florida. Parents agreed that the Children would remain in 

Evansville and attend a Catholic parochial school. Father agreed that parenting 

time during the school year would be exercised in Indiana. Because Father 

resided in Florida, Parents agreed that they “shall work together, taking into 

consideration [] Father’s work and travel schedule and the [C]hildren’s 

activities to maximize [] Father’s parenting time . . . .” (Appellant’s App. p. 5). 

Distance being a factor, it was agreed that Father would have an extra week of 

parenting time during the summer of each year. Parents also settled that in the 

event Father would relocate to Evansville, Father would have the Children on 

alternate weekends and a mid-week overnight. In addition, Father agreed to 

pay $275.00 per week in child support, but Parents were to equally share the 

costs of the Children’s extracurricular activities.

[7] Also, Parents decided that they would sell their two homes—2166 and 2162 E. 

Powell Ave. in Evansville, Indiana. 2166 was their marital residence, and 

Parents used 2162 as a rental property. As for the Parents’ matrimonial home, 

Parents agreed that it shall be sold by a realtor of Father’s choosing and the net 

proceeds to be applied to the “Target, Chase and Evansville Teacher Federal 

Credit Union credit card debt, limited to a maximum of $31,000.00” and the 

remainder of the proceeds if any, to be applied to the “IRS debt.” (Appellant’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 4 of 12

App. p. 7). As for the Parents’ rental home, it was agreed that any equity or 

liability should be split equally. 

[8] On January 3, 2014, Mother filed a petition requesting Father to be held in 

contempt. The trial court set a hearing for February 28, 2014. On February 7, 

2014, Father filed a notice of intent to relocate from “his current residence in [] 

Florida to a nearby residence.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 2). The Chronological Case 

Summary (CCS) shows that on February 28, 2014, at the contempt hearing, the 

trial court ordered that Mother would have the Children “[one] night whenever 

Father has parenting time of [seven] days in a row.” (Appellant’s App. p. 7). 

On March 7, 2014, Father filed a second notice of intent to relocate, this time, 

back to Evansville, Indiana. Three days later, on March 10, Mother filed a 

Verified Petition to Modify and/or Clarify Information for Contempt and 

Objection to Notice of Relocation. In that petition, Mother alleged that Father 

had failed to comply with the most recent order. Mother also claimed that 

Father interfered with the Children’s sporting activities and had failed to pay for 

the Children’s extracurricular activities. In addition, Mother stated that Father 

had failed to list the marital home for sale and his intention to move back to the 

home is inconsistent with his obligation under the Agreement to sell the home 

and apply the proceeds to the marital debt. Also, Mother alleged that Father’s 

income had since improved because Father was able to travel twice a month 

from Florida on alternating weekends, and that his visits, at some point, turned 

into a week-long event. Due to her suspicion that Father’s income had since 

increased, Mother claimed that there should be an adjustment to the existing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 5 of 12

child support payments. In addition, Mother sought modification from the 

ordered payment of extracurricular expense from the 50/50 ratio, to Father

being responsible for 75% and Mother for 25%. As for parenting time, Mother 

argued that it should be modified in accordance with the Guidelines because of

Father’s ability to be in the Evansville area for a lengthy period of time during 

his visits or in the event that Father moves back to Evansville. Lastly, Mother 

argued that Father should not have the Children for more than a week during 

the school year or for more than six weeks at a time during the summer, 

particularly, if Father moved back to Evansville. 

[9] On May 12, 2014, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition. Father 

alleged that the Agreement did not set a timeline to list their marital home for 

sale, and he explained that the listing was delayed due to repair and insurance 

issues of which Mother was made aware. As for Mother’s claim that he had 

interfered with the Children’s sporting events, Father stated that he had missed 

one event due to Mother over-scheduling of activities. Father also stated that 

his salary remained unchanged. Father explained that the only reason he was 

able to travel twice a month was due to budget rates on Allegiant Air. In 

addition, Father claimed that Mother had failed to share the Children’s events 

through Google calendar, and due to that omission, Father had missed N.S.’

first holy communion, a major life event. Lastly, Father claimed that there 

would be no negative impact on the Children if he moved back to their 

unoccupied marital home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 6 of 12

[10] The trial court scheduled a hearing on May 14, 2014, to hear Mother’s petition 

and Father’s motion to dismiss. At the commencement of the hearing, Parents

informed the court that they had reached a partial agreement, which was recited 

in open court. Mother’s counsel expressed that Father was no longer relocating 

to Evansville; however, Parents had agreed that Father would exercise eight 

overnights per month during the school year but not for more than four 

consecutive days at a time. As for the four-day rule, Mother’s counsel stated it

would not apply to Father’s parenting time over spring break or Christmas 

break. It was stated that Mother was withdrawing her request to modify the 

child support, and costs of the extracurricular activities. Parents also agreed 

that during Father’s visits in Evansville, Father would maintain the Children’s 

extracurricular activities, including scouting, tennis, archery, karate, and S.S. 

service in Church. Lastly, Mother’s counsel stated that Parents settled that the 

Children’s scheduled activities would be posted on Google calendar and that 

Parents would keep each other informed about the Children’s major life events, 

incidents, or accidents. 

[11] A summary hearing on all pending issues ensued. The most important issue on 

appeal is Father’s extra week of summer parenting time. According to the 

December 27, 2013 Agreement, Parents agreed that summer parenting time will 

be in accordance with the Guidelines with one exception: Father was entitled 

to an extra week of parenting time during the summer of each year. Mother 

posited that because Father would be exercising all the parenting time as per the 

Guidelines—alternating weekends and mid-week overnights—Father should 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 7 of 12

not be entitled to the extra week of parenting time in the summer. Father’s 

counsel argued that distance being a factor, he should continue to have his extra 

week of parenting time in the summer. In addition, Father wished to exercise 

his parenting time in one consecutive block whereas Mother wished that it be 

split in several blocks. 

[12] In determining whether Father would continue to have his extended parenting 

time in the summer, the trial court resolved that “there won’t be that bonus 

extra week because [Father] is getting his eight days during the summer . . . or, 

during the month.” (Tr. p. 42). In addition, the trial court’s Order modifying 

custody stated that:

5. [] Father shall be entitled to parenting time in Evansville for eight 

(8) days per month, consistent with regular parenting time schedule in 

the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines as if he were residing in 

Indiana. Because he does not reside in Indiana, he may take those 

days no more than four (4) consecutive days at a time. Spring Break, 

Christmas Break and Summer Break parenting time shall not be 

restricted to four-day limit, per [A]greement. 

6. [] Father shall be entitled to one-half (1⁄2) of the summer break for 

parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. 

He may take his half of the summer in one extended visit rather than 

breaking up his visit. During each party’s block of summer parenting 

time, the other parent is not entitled to interrupt with temporary 

interim parenting time unless agreed upon by the parties. [] Father 

shall return the [C]hildren to [] Mother at least one week prior to the 

beginning of school, to get them ready and back into a routine. 

(Appellant’s App. p. 9). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 8 of 12

[13] On June 13, 2014, Father filed a motion to correct error, alleging that pursuant 

to their Agreement, he was entitled to an extra week of summer parenting time. 

In addition, Father contended that “Mother’s [c]ounsel added an issue” as to 

the extra week of parenting time, to which Father “did not agree with nor seek 

to address at [the summary] hearing.” (Appellant’s App. p. 38). Father 

maintained that modification of his extra week of parenting time required 

detailed findings by the trial court, which did not ensue. On June 17, 2014, the 

trial court denied Father’s motion. 

[14] Father now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[15] When reviewing a trial court’s determination of a parenting time issue, we will 

grant latitude and deference to our trial courts, reversing only when the trial 

court abuses its discretion. Gomez v. Gomez, 887 N.E.2d 977, 983 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008). No abuse of discretion occurs if there is a rational basis supporting the 

trial court’s determination. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Id. In all parenting time issues, courts are required 

to give foremost consideration to the best interest of the child. Id.

[16] We note a parent’s right as the noncustodial parent to visit his Children is a 

“precious privilege.” Duncan v. Duncan, 843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2006), trans. denied. Therefore, a noncustodial parent is generally entitled to 

reasonable visitation rights. Id. The trial court’s modification of a parent’s

parenting time is governed by Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2, which provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 9 of 12

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.1

[17] The record shows that at the start of the summary hearing, Parents arrived at a 

partial agreement where Father would have regular parenting time during the 

school year—eight overnights per month. However, Mother requested the trial 

court to equally split the summer parenting schedule as recommended by the 

Guidelines. The trial court granted Mother’s wish by stating “there won’t be 

that bonus extra week because [Father] is getting his eight days during the 

summer . . . or, during the month.” (Tr. p. 42). Father maintains that the trial 

court’s “adherence” to the Guidelines so as to modify his summer parenting 

time is flawed and is not a substitute for modifying parenting time. (Appellant’s 

Br. p. 10). According to Father, because the trial court did not issue any finding 

as to whether that modification would serve the Children’s best interest, we 

should remand this cause. We agree. After combing through the record, there 

was no mention as to whether modification of Father’s summer parenting 

 

1

 Because we are remanding this cause, we need not address Father’s claim as to whether modification 

amounted to a restriction of his parenting time. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 10 of 12

would be in the best interest of the Children. See Hill v. Ramey, 744 N.E.2d 509, 

513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that modification of visitation was “improper 

because the order includes no finding that modification would serve the child’s 

best interests”). Here, the trial court failed to articulate at the hearing or in its 

written order whether modification of his parenting time would serve the 

Children’s best interests. Under these circumstances, we remand for the trial 

court to determine and make findings as to whether the modification of Father’s 

summer parenting time would serve the Children’s best interests.

CONCLUSION

[18] For the reasons mentioned above, we conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion in modifying Father’s summer parenting time without a finding that

modification is in the best interest of the Children. In this regard, we remand 

for the trial court to make necessary determination consistent with this opinion. 

[19] Remanded with instructions.

[20] Vaidik, C. J. concurs

[21] Baker, J. dissents with separate opinion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 11 of 12

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Marriage of:

J.D.S.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

B.S.,

Appellees-Petitioner.

Court of Appeals Case No.

82A05-1407-DR-331

Baker, Judge, dissenting.

[22] I respectfully dissent. The trial court here was presented with a very complex 

set of circumstances to consider. The parties’ prior arrangement was 

complicated to begin with, and Father’s decision to relocate back to Indiana, 

followed by his decision to remain in Florida, taking into account his ability to 

spend more time with the Children during the school year than the parties had 

originally anticipated, left the trial court with quite a knot to untangle.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 82A05-1407-DR-331 | April 10, 2015 Page 12 of 12

[23] In my view, the trial court did a superb job managing the interests of the parents 

and Children, and arrived at a fair result for all concerned. It is readily 

apparent to me that the trial court took the best interests of the Children into 

account in modifying the parties’ parenting time arrangement. That the trial 

court did not explicitly state as much does not, in my opinion, warrant a 

remand. I believe that would be an unnecessary use of judicial resources, as 

well as the parties’ time and money. Consequently, I would affirm the trial 

court’s order.