Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-DR-2841 | September 14, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Kurt Brenneman

North Providence, Rhode Island

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

STATE OF INDIANA

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Andrea E. Rahman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kurt Brenneman,

Appellant,

v.

Lisa K. Brenneman, et al.,

Appellees.

September 14, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A02-1711-DR-2841

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Donald L. Daniel,

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79C01-1103-DR-57

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-DR-2841 | September 14, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Kurt Brenneman (“Father”) and Lisa Brenneman (“Mother”) are the parents of 

six children. They divorced in 2002. Following the divorce, Father was 

ordered to pay child support for the parties’ children. In 2014 and 2016, both 

Father and the State1filed motions seeking modification of Father’s childsupport obligation. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order 

modifying Father’s child-support obligation and finding him in arrears of his 

obligation in the amount of $2,551.00. Father challenges the portion of the trial 

court’s order finding him in arrears of his child-support obligation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Our memorandum decision in Father’s prior appeal, which was handed down 

on December 22, 2016, instructs us to the underlying facts and procedural 

history leading to the instant appeal.

[Father] and [Mother] were married in 1984 and had six children 

in their marriage.... In September 2001, [Mother] filed a petition 

for dissolution of marriage and the trial court entered a decree of 

dissolution in 2002.... On September 27, 2014, [Father], 

proceeding pro se, filed a verified petition for modification of 

child support. Shortly thereafter, [Father] filed a motion for 

emergency hearing on the petition, and a motion to emancipate 

children.... On June 3, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on 

various motions and petitions filed by [Father], including 

 

1

 The State became involved in the case because the family received public assistance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-DR-2841 | September 14, 2018 Page 3 of 5

[Father]’s verified petition to modify child support and motion to 

emancipate children.... The trial court gave [Father] multiple 

opportunities to address his various claims of emancipation and 

child support; however, he refused to offer any testimony because 

he claimed he had not received the discovery he needed to 

proceed.... Because he refused to offer testimony or significantly 

participate in the hearing, the trial court dismissed [Father]’s 

verified petition for modification of child support.

Brenneman v. Brenneman, 79A05-1508-DR-1074, *1–2 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 

2016). During the pendency of Father’s prior appeal, the State filed two 

motions to modify Father’s child-support obligation. Id. at *1. Ultimately, we 

reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Father’s modification petition and 

remanded to the trial court for a new modification hearing. Id. at *4.

[3] The trial court conducted a hearing on the parties’ motions on August 7, 2017. 

On September 17, 2017, the trial court issued an order in which it found the 

following:

13. Father’s child support obligation shall be modified to $74.00 

per week as of September 30, 2014.

14. All children of this marriage are emancipated as of 

December 13, 2016.

15. Father’s child support obligation shall be terminated as of 

December 13, 2016.

16. Father is in arrears in the child support obligation in the 

amount of $2,551.00 as of September 1, 2017, of which $1,663.52 

is owed to the Mother and $887.48 is owed to the State of 

Indiana for past public assistance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-DR-2841 | September 14, 2018 Page 4 of 5

Appellant’s Supp. App. Vol. IV, p. 5. Father’s motion to correct error was 

denied by the trial court on October 24, 2017. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Father appeals from the trial court’s September 11, 2017 order. Father’s 

arguments are largely focused on his apparent belief that Indiana’s rules and 

regulations relating to child custody and support proceedings are 

unconstitutional. In making this argument, Father asserts that the rules and 

regulations somehow violate an individual’s due process rights and challenges 

the propriety of basing these decisions on what he alleges are flawed and 

unconstitutional determinations relating to the best interests of the children 

involved. While we acknowledge Father’s constitutional arguments, we note 

that these arguments were not raised before the trial court and, as such, are not 

properly before us at this time. See Monschein v. LaLonde, 701 N.E.2d 1275, 

1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (providing that a party “may only obtain judicial 

review of issues that were properly raised to the trial court” and this rule also 

applies to a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute). We will therefore 

limit our review to Father’s arguments relating to the propriety of the trial 

court’s September 11, 2017 order.

[5] In challenging the trial court’s order, Father argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion by accepting the child support worksheet that reflected the highest 

potential arrearage. The State filed three alternative child support worksheets. 

Each awarded Father a different amount of credit for parenting time exercised 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-DR-2841 | September 14, 2018 Page 5 of 5

with the children. In considering these worksheets, the trial court found that 

Father had not “exercised more than 51 overnights over a period of a year” 

and, as a result, was not entitled to a parenting time credit. Appellant’s Supp. 

App. Vol. IV, p. 5. The trial court’s finding is consistent with the Commentary 

to Indiana Child Support Guideline 6 which indicates that credit “begins at 52 

overnights annually or the equivalent of alternate weekends of parenting time 

only.” The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in accepting the 

child support worksheet awarding Father no credit for parenting time exercised 

with the children. 

[6] Father also argues that there was no evidence that he failed to satisfy his duty to 

support his children. Exhibit E, however, establishes that prior to modification, 

Father was $11,176.00 in arrears of his child support obligation. This amount 

was cut to $2,551.00 after retroactive modification of Father’s child support 

obligation. The evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Father 

failed to meet his obligation to support his children.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.