Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 1 of 37

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

Cynthia A. Marcus

Marcus Law Firm, LLC

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

James D. Metzger

The Law Office of James D. 

Metzger, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher Vicoli,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner,

v.

Ashley Mullica (Vicoli),

Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent.

August 14, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A04-1711-DR-2624

Appeal from the 

Johnson Superior Court

The Honorable 

G. Thomas Gray, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

41D02-1405-DR-317

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Christopher Vicoli (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to 

modify custody. Father raises the following restated issues for our review:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 2 of 37

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied Father’s petition for modification of custody 

because, Father alleges, the trial court based its 

determination on several findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon that were not supported by the evidence;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

restricted Father’s parenting time by denying mid-week 

visitation; and

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied Father’s request to modify child support and 

ordered the original support order to remain in effect.

Ashley Mullica (Vicoli) (“Mother”) raises several cross-appeal issues, which we 

restate as:

I. Whether Father timely filed his notice of appeal;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

excluded evidence of alleged domestic violence by Father 

against Mother; and 

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

denied Mother’s request for attorney fees pursuant to the 

Agreed Entry of June 26, 2014.

[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother and Father are the parents of eight-year old L.V. (“Child”). Mother 

and Father lived in England together until their marriage was dissolved in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 3 of 37

October 2012, at which time Mother moved back to the United States with 

Child and her older sibling, K.S.1 Child was three years old at the time she 

moved back to the United States with Mother. An Agreed Entry was entered 

on June 26, 2014, which gave the parents joint legal custody of Child, granted 

Mother primary physical custody of Child, and ordered Father to pay child 

support in the amount of $500 per month. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 16-20; Pet’r’s 

Ex. 1. Father remained in England after the dissolution and operated a Subway 

franchise until August 2016. During the time that he remained in England, 

Father exercised regular contact with Child pursuant to the Agreed Entry, 

including communicating through Skype and having visitations in England and 

in the United States during summer and school holidays. While in England, 

Father remarried. 

[4] Child has lived with Mother since birth. Tr. Vol. 2 at 76. Child suffers from 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and Major Depressive 

Disorder. Id. at 85. K.S. suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome and Oppositional 

Defiant Disorder. Id. at 77. Child and K.S. have spent their entire lives 

together and are very close. Id. at 78, 80. K.S.’s condition results in meltdowns 

as a response to change, and therefore, structure in her life is important. Id. at

77. Child also gets upset when her structure or routine is broken or disrupted. 

Id. at 86. 

 

1

Father is not the father of K.S., who was born prior to the marriage between Father and Mother.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 4 of 37

[5] In May 2012, Mother met Joe Mullica (“Joe”), and they began living together 

shortly thereafter. Mother and Joe subsequently had a child together, born in 

March 2013 and another born in April 2017. In July 2014, while in Florida on 

vacation, Joe became intoxicated and strangled Mother. Pet’r’s Ex. 5. Child 

was not present at the time of the battery. Joe was arrested, but at Mother’s 

request, the Florida criminal case against Joe was dismissed. Pet’r’s Exs. 5, 6. 

The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) conducted an investigation

regarding Child as a result of the incident in Florida, and neglect of Child was

unsubstantiated. Pet’r’s Ex. 7. Father was notified of the Florida incident by 

DCS and by Mother. In July 2015, Mother filed for a protective order against

Joe based on domestic violence incidents from 2012 through 2015. Pet’r’s Ex. 8.

Mother later requested that the ex parte protective order be dismissed because 

she wanted to work on her relationship with Joe and have the two of them 

attend counseling. Tr. Vol. 2 at 39; Pet’r’s Ex. 8. The protective order case was 

dismissed, but the parties did not attend domestic violence or marital 

counseling. Tr. Vol. 2 at 169.

[6] In April 2016, Mother attempted to commit suicide by ingesting large amounts 

of her thyroid medication. Pet’r’s Ex. 10. Father, who was still in England at 

the time, learned of this through DCS. On April 19, 2016, Mother filed for 

another protective order against Joe alleging domestic violence and stalking 

from 2012 through 2016. Pet’r’s Ex. 9. After an investigation that was initiated 

as a result of Mother’s suicide attempt, DCS found neglect of Child to be 

unsubstantiated because Child felt safe in Mother’s home. Pet’r’s Ex. 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 5 of 37

During the investigation, Mother told DCS she was attending counseling. Id. 

On May 23, 2015, Mother voluntarily dismissed the April 2016 ex parte 

protective order. Pet’r’s Ex. 9. Mother and Joe got married the next day and 

moved into a new 5,000 square foot home shortly thereafter as part of their plan 

to remove negative influences from their life. Tr. Vol. 3 at 7-8. When Mother 

vacated her apartment, it had sustained damage, including medium and large 

sized holes in the walls and broken doors. Pet’r’s Exs. 15,16. 

[7] On June 10, 2016, Father filed a petition for modification of the Agreed Entry, 

which requested a modification of custody, child support, and parenting time. 

A hearing was held on Father’s petition on June 26 and 27, 2017 and concluded 

on July 18, 2017. At the hearing, Mother testified that a change in the amount

of contact between Child and K.S. would have a substantial and detrimental 

effect on both children because both children because of the disruption to their 

routine and structure. Tr. Vol. 2 at 80. Krista Anderson (“Anderson”), a 

licensed marriage and family therapist, met with Child and familiarized herself 

with Mother and Father and Child’s interactions with them. Id. at 175-176. 

Anderson testified that if Child were to spend less time with her siblings, and

K.S. especially, it would have a substantial effect on the children. Id. at 196-

197. 

[8] At the time of the hearing, Father had been exercising parenting time from 

Wednesday to Monday morning every other week after since his move back to 

the United States in 2016. Mother testified that Child was exhibiting anxiety 

for some reason related to the transition. Id. at 201-202. Child had begun 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 6 of 37

wetting her bed the night before going to stay with Father, which she had not 

done since Father came back for the first time to visit after she and Mother 

returned to the United States from England. Id. at 81. Mother also stated that 

Child had also become more aggressive, sarcastic, and emotional since seeing 

Father on a more regular basis. Id. Child informed the trial court in an incamera interview that she did not like the mid-week transition and told the 

custody evaluator that she wanted the schedule that “makes [her] more at [her]

mom’s house.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 38; Pet’r’s Ex. 11 at 9.

[9] As to the incidents of domestic violence between Mother and Joe, Mother 

testified that Joe only “even laid hands on [her]” during the incident in Florida, 

which Child did not witness. Tr. Vol. 2 at 109-10. Mother also stated that, 

although there were allegations of verbal arguments between her and Joe, Child 

witnessed very few of those. Id. at 110. Mother testified that, even though she 

made the statements under the penalties of perjury, she misrepresented and 

exaggerated the facts that she included in both of the petitions for protective 

order that she filed. Id. at 33-38, 41-45. Joe testified at the hearing and 

admitted that he has an anger problem, and at the time of the hearing, he had 

begun seeing a therapist and had attended two sessions. Id. at 237; Tr. Vol. 3 at 

209. Joe also previously engaged in eight and a half weeks of online anger 

management after the incident in Florida. Tr. Vol. 2 at 241. He did not 

complete the course because his computer broke, and he could not afford a new 

one. Id. at 240. Joe told the court that he was not opposed to participating in 

counseling, but that financial restraints had impaired his ability to gain 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 7 of 37

treatment in the past; however, he now had the means through insurance to 

obtain treatment. Tr. Vol. 3 at 14, 17. Mother and Joe testified that they had 

recognized negative influences in their lives and distanced themselves from 

such influences and had moved into a larger home that allowed more space, so 

they could go to different areas when conflict arises. Tr. Vol. 2 at 127-28; Tr. 

Vol. 3 at 7-8.

[10] At the time of the hearing, Mother was in the training process to become a 

school bus driver. She was making between $12 and $13 per hour and was only 

allowed to train for two to four hours per day. In order to be a school bus 

driver, Mother would have to obtain her CDL license and pass a training test. 

She would then make $21 per hour and would be considered a substitute bus 

driver and would work four to six hours a week depending on her route. 

Mother would not be guaranteed to work a full week until she becomes a bus 

driver and has a route of her own which could take up to a year. At the time of 

the hearing, she was working part time in her brother’s cell phone store for 

supplemental income, working approximately twenty hours per week and

making $8 per hour. Prior to having her fourth child in April 2017, Mother was 

employed with the U.S. Postal Service, earning about $17 per hour, but after 

going on maternity leave, she resigned to spend more time with her children. 

[11] At the time of the hearing, Father was working part time as a tutor at both Ivy 

Tech and Bender and Rocap. Father earned between $13-14 per hour at Ivy 

Tech and $40 an hour at Bender and Rocap. He had applied for four or five 

jobs in the year since he moved back to the United States. Father spent some 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 8 of 37

$80,000 from the sale of his Subway restaurant in England to purchase a rental 

property. Father was hoping to pick up new clients with the tutoring agency. 

He had only been there six months and after six months he would “move up the 

pecking order” and gain more opportunities to get additional clients. Tr. Vol. 3 

at 192. Father testified that he was looking for additional employment that 

would pay more than what he was making at the time. Father also expected

that his vacant rental property would become occupied, which would provide

more income. Father remarried in 2016, and at the time of the hearing, had a 

newborn baby with his second wife. Child had known Father’s new wife for 

five years. Father and his wife purchased a home in the Castleton area, where 

they resided. 

[12] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Father’s petition and 

denied his request for modification of custody and ordered that Father be 

entitled to exercise parenting time per the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines

(“Parenting Time Guidelines”), but ordered he was not entitled to mid-week 

parenting time, finding that it was inappropriate in the present case and not in 

the best interest of Child. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10-14. The trial court also 

ordered that Father’s child support obligation should remain in the amount of 

$500 per month as originally ordered in the Agreed Entry because the parties 

incomes were in a “state of flux” at the time of the hearing, and an accurate 

child support calculation could not be made at that time. Id. at 14. Father now 

appeals. Additional facts will be added as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 9 of 37

Discussion and Decision

I. Timeliness of Notice of Appeal

[13] Initially, we address Mother’s contention that Father failed to timely file his 

notice of appeal. Because the determination of this issue could be dispositive, 

we will resolve it first. Mother argues that Father’s notice of appeal was not 

filed in a timely manner because it was not filed within thirty days of the trial 

court’s oral pronouncement of its denial of Father’s petition for modification of 

custody. 

[14] Assuming without deciding that Father failed to timely file his notice of appeal, 

we proceed to determine the case on its merits. Although under Indiana 

Appellate Rule 9(A)(5) the untimely filing of a notice of appeal forfeits the right 

to appeal, Indiana courts have concluded that the question is whether there are 

extraordinarily compelling reasons why the appeal should be allowed. In re 

Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014); Robertson v. Robertson, 60 

N.E.3d 1085, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). First, the Appellate Rules themselves 

provide a mechanism allowing the an otherwise forfeited appeal to be 

resurrected. See Ind. Appellate Rule 1 (providing in relevant part that the 

“Court may, upon the motion of a party or the Court’s own motion, permit 

deviation from these Rules”). In re O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 972. Second, a parent’s 

interest in the custody of his child is a fundamental liberty interest, and the 

parent-child relationship is one of the most valued relationships in our culture. 

Id.; Robertson, 60 N.E.3d at 1090. Based on this reasoning, we conclude that 

Father’s appeal deserves a determination on the merits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 10 of 37

II. Custody Determination

[15] Father first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his 

petition to modify custody, which requested that custody be changed from 

Mother to him. Indiana appellate courts grant latitude and deference to our 

trial courts in family law matters. Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2012). Modifications of child custody are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the 

witnesses. Id. Instead, we view only the evidence favorable to the trial court’s 

judgment and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from this evidence.

Id.

[16] The trial court here entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon when it 

denied modification. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), we do not “set 

aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be 

given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” 

Factual findings are only clearly erroneous where there is no support for them 

in the record, either directly or by inference; a judgment is only clearly 

erroneous when it applies an improper legal standard to proper facts. Johnson v. 

Johnson, 999 N.E.2d 56, 59 (Ind. 2013). In either case, we must be left with the 

firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. 

[17] We reiterate and emphasize that “[j]udgments in custody matters typically turn 

on essentially factual determinations and will be set aside only when they are 

clearly erroneous.” Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1257 (Ind. 2008). The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 11 of 37

appellate court will not substitute its own judgment if any evidence or 

legitimate inferences support the trial court’s judgment. Id. at 1257-58. “The 

concern for finality in custody matters reinforces this doctrine.” Id.

[18] Father contends that a number of the trial court’s findings were not supported 

by the evidence. Specifically, he takes issue with Findings 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 

14, 17,18, 19, 20, and 21. Father claims that, because these findings were not 

supported by the evidence and because the findings, therefore, do not support 

the judgment, the trial court’s judgment leaving Child in Mother’s custody was 

clearly erroneous.

[19] Father alleges that Finding 4, which stated “[Mother] has been in the child’s life 

consistently since the child’s birth and has had physical custody of the child 

since the divorce,” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10, was not supported by the 

evidence. At the hearing, Mother testified that she had lived with Child since 

birth and had been the custodial parent since her divorce with Father. Tr. Vol. 2

at 76. Therefore, evidence was presented to support Finding 4. Father’s 

argument that “This finding is contradicted by the import of the totality of the 

other findings made (or ignored) by the trial court” appears to be a request that 

we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do on appeal. See Miller, 965 

N.E.2d at 108. 

[20] Finding 6 stated, 

There have been several substantial changes in circumstances 

including both parents remarrying, the addition of new siblings, 

Petitioner returning to the United States in 2016 after living in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 12 of 37

England since the divorce in 2012 while child lived in the United 

States with Respondent and the child moving into a different 

home with Respondent. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 11. Father contends that this finding ignored the crux 

of the case, which was that family violence existed in Mother’s home and that 

family violence was a substantial change in circumstances. All of the 

information in the finding was supported by evidence presented at the hearing, 

both Mother and Father had remarried and had additional children with their 

new spouses, Father had returned to the United States, and Child had moved 

into a new home with Mother and her new husband. Tr. Vol. 2 at 18-19, 108, 

126; Tr. Vol. 3 at 55, 77, 90-91. Although the trial court did not list the family 

violence that had occurred in Mother’s home in this finding, it did consider the 

evidence of domestic violence presented at the hearing when it found that there 

were three episodes of domestic violence between Mother and Joe and that Joe 

had an anger problem. Tr. Vol. 4 at 35-36; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 11. The trial 

court further found that Joe’s anger problem was “a troubling fact” to the trial 

court. Tr. Vol. 4 at 36. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence supported 

Finding 6.

[21] Father asserts that Finding 7, which stated that, “There have been three 

instances of domestic violence between [Mother] and [Joe],” which occurred in 

“July of [2014], July of [2015], and April of [2016],” was not supported by the 

evidence. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 11; Tr. Vol. 4 at 35. Father contends that this 

is because Mother’s two petitions for protective order contained multiple 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 13 of 37

instances of alleged domestic violence, and at the hearing, Mother testified that 

the allegations in those petitions were exaggerated and misrepresented. Tr. Vol. 

2 at 33-38, 41-45. Father’s argument is just a request for this court to reweigh 

the evidence and assess Mother’s credibility. At the hearing, Mother testified 

that Joe did in fact choke her during the incident in Florida in July 2014 that 

was reported to the police. Id. at 25-26. She also admitted that Joe threatened 

to kill her parents on July 23, 2015 and that he hit her in the arm. Id. at 37, 41-

42. As to the other incidents that were contained in the petitions for protective 

order, mother testified that they were exaggerated or misrepresented in order to 

obtain the protective order, and the trial court either chose to believe Mother’s 

testimony on this account or believe that what was reported did not constitute 

domestic violence. There was evidence that Joe caused property damage to 

their old apartment, but property damage does not, alone, constitute domestic 

violence.2 Id. at 32, 43-45. Mother also testified that Joe held her down one 

time, but no further details of the incident were given; testimony was also given 

that Joe “would say mean things to [Mother],” which also does not alone fit the 

definition of domestic violence. Id. at 35, 42. Evidence was presented that 

supported Finding 7.

[22] Finding 8 stated, “Erica Oaks of DCS gave testimony that while violence did 

occur, the child did not see the violence, the child felt safe in [Mother]’s home, 

 

2

Indiana Code section 31-9-2-42 defines domestic or family violence in pertinent part as: “(1) attempting to 

cause, threatening to cause, or causing physical harm to another family or household member without legal 

justification; (2) placing a family or household member in fear of physical harm without legal justification.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 14 of 37

and the DCS investigation indicated the allegations that the child was a child in 

need of services were unsubstantiated.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 11. Father 

argues that this finding is clearly erroneous because the trial court used the 

wrong legal standard, asserting that the standard of proof for CHINS cases does 

not apply in a custody modification case. Appellant’s Br. at 22-23. However, 

this argument seems misplaced as the finding does not apply the CHINS 

standard to the present case, but merely stated testimony given by Erica Oakes 

(“FCM Oakes”), who conducted an assessment of alleged child abuse or 

neglect for DCS in April 2016. FCM Oakes testified that, in her investigation, 

she learned that Joe hit Mother in the arm, but that it did not take place in front 

of the children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 53. FCM Oakes further stated that she spoke with 

Child, who told FCM Oakes that she felt safe in Mother’s home, and FCM 

Oakes found that the allegations that Child was a CHINS to be 

unsubstantiated. Id. at 56, 58. Therefore, Finding 8 was supported by the 

evidence.

[23] Finding 9 stated:

The Court found witness Krista Anderson, a family and marriage 

therapist, to be quite astute and placed great weight upon her 

testimony. Significantly, Anderson opined that while the child 

might be at risk for being a victim of domestic violence that she 

had not been a victim of violence. Ms. Anderson also opined 

that less contact between the child and her siblings in this specific 

case will have a negative and substantial effect on the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 15 of 37

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 11. Father takes issue with the portion of the finding 

where the trial court stated that it found “Anderson ‘to be quite astute and 

placed great weight upon her testimony,’” claiming that this finding was clearly 

erroneous because the finding did not take into account other testimony by 

Anderson regarding hypothetical long lasting effects of exposure to domestic 

violence. Appellant’s Br. at 23. The record shows that Anderson did testify that, 

while Child might be at risk for being a victim of domestic violence, she had not 

been a victim. Tr. Vol. 2 at 184, 191-92. Further, the record reflects that there 

no evidence was presented that Child has been a victim of domestic violence or 

has been exposed to it. Mother testified that Child never saw any physical 

violence, witnessed few arguments, and she and Joe took measures to keep it 

away from the children even when in the apartment. Id. at 110. Child stated to 

FCM Oakes “that her mom and [Joe] do not argue often” and told the custody 

evaluator, “Mom and Joe might argue, but it is not anything bad.” Ex. 10 at 3; 

Ex. 11 at 9. Much of Father’s argument focuses on statistical evidence and 

generalized information about whether a domestic batterer will also victimize a 

child, which the trial court had an opportunity to hear, as well as the testimony 

of the witnesses regarding the parties and the present situation. Father’s 

contention is just a request to reweigh the evidence. Finding 9 was supported 

by the evidence. 

[24] Father next contends that Finding 10, which stated, “That Joe Mullica, current 

husband of [Mother] does have an anger problem, but is addressing it,” was not 

supported by the evidence. Specifically, Father argues that the part of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 16 of 37

finding that stated that Joe was addressing his anger problem was not supported 

by the record because Joe had not yet completed counseling at the time of the 

hearing. Joe testified that he is not opposed to participating in treatment but 

had been hindered due to financial reasons. Tr. Vol. 3 at 13-14. At the time of 

the hearing, Joe had been seeing a therapist at the same place where Mother 

and Child attend, had been to two sessions with three more scheduled, was 

attending once a week, and was working on issues of things that happened to 

him when he was younger. Id. at 209. Both Mother and Joe testified that they 

had been learning things to help them cope with stress and how to deal with 

situations and talk with each other. Tr. Vol. 2 at 111; Tr. Vol. 3 at 7-9. Evidence 

was presented that supported the trial court’s Finding 10.

[25] Father asserts that Finding 12, which stated, “[Mother] is making appropriate 

steps with her employment that are suited to address the best interests of the 

child,” was not supported by the evidence presented. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 

11. Father argues that the finding was not supported because the evidence 

showed that Mother had quit her employment with the postal service, where 

she was making around $17 per hour, and was only working part time at her 

brother’s store where she was making $8 per hour at the time of the hearing. 

The evidence at the hearing showed that Mother had recently quit her job 

working for the postal service and had begun training to become a school bus 

driver, which would allow her to spend more time with her children. Tr. Vol. 2

at 112-13. Mother testified that, after her training, her pay as a bus driver 

would be higher per hour than her previous position, but she would work fewer 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 17 of 37

hours which would allow her to spend more time with her children while 

making a similar amount of money. Id. at 112. Mother would not be working

during the summers and would be able to spend that time with her children, 

and her hours at work would be more predictable than they were at the postal 

service. Id. at 15-16, 112-13. Mother stated that her job with the postal service 

was extremely stressful, which contributed to her suicide attempt, and the trial 

court could infer that changing her employment would alleviate that stress and 

help make her a better parent. Id. at 118-19. Evidence was presented to 

support Finding 12. 

[26] Finding 14 stated, “[Mother] is bettering herself particularly by moving into a 

larger home, learning to create space between her and Joe when conflict arises, 

and by having removed those who create negative influences from her family’s 

life.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. Father claims that the record did not contain 

evidence to support this finding because no evidence suggested that Mother was 

bettering herself by doing the things listed in the finding and that making the 

changes listed in the finding will not cure a domestic abuser, citing to testimony 

by Anderson. However, Father’s contention does not properly characterize 

Anderson’s full testimony. Although she did state that moving into a larger 

house would not cure a domestic batterer, Anderson did testify that removing 

negative influences would be a necessary step to break the cycle of violence. Tr. 

Vol. 2 at 190. Anderson further stated that she teaches children and victims of

violence to “take their own space” wherever they happen to be as a mechanism 

to remove themselves from a violent situation. Id. at 190-91. Further, although 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 18 of 37

Father takes issue with the fact that the listed things in the finding will not cure 

a domestic batterer, the trial court only stated in the finding that Mother was 

bettering herself by doing these things, not curing Joe. Sufficient evidence was 

presented to support Finding 14. 

[27] Finding 17 stated, “Exhibit 36 shows the antagonistic nature of [Father]’s 

attitude towards [Mother] and her family.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. Father 

asserts that this finding is clearly erroneous and not relevant because the trial 

court should not have made the finding based on a single short series of text 

messages. Exhibit 36 was a series of text messages between Father and 

Mother’s father (“Grandfather”), in which Grandfather asked that Father stop 

harassing Mother though text messages, and Father responded that “if [Mother] 

can’t defend herself then maybe she isn’t adult enough to raise a child” and 

continued to explain that he only informed Mother about Child’s health and 

that Child should have had a coat. Pet’r’s Ex. 36. Father then stated that 

Mother was “being dramatic,” and Grandfather again asked Father to stop 

harassing Mother and that Father should have been responsible for Child 

having a coat when it was Father’s visitation time with Child. Id. Mother also 

recounted a time when she and Father had a conversation about him not 

returning clothing sent with Child on visitations with Father, to which he 

responded that, because he paid child support, the clothing was his. Tr. Vol. 2

at 88. Mother also recounted that during a Christmas break, the parties 

attempted to negotiate parenting time for the holidays, and Father just ended up 

keeping Child for the time he wanted anyway. Id. at 131-32. We, therefore, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 19 of 37

conclude that the trial court’s finding was supported by the evidence presented. 

A large portion of Father’s argument alleges that the trial court focused on 

Father’s antagonistic nature but ignored evidence of Joe’s domestic violence. 

This allegation is a request to reweigh the evidence and minimize Father’s 

antagonistic interactions with Mother and other members of her family, which 

reflect on Father’s ability to cooperate with Mother and with visitation 

schedules.

[28] Father next asserts that Finding 18, which stated, “The Court finds it telling 

that half of the clothes that [Father] had for the child, came from the [Mother],” 

is not supported by the evidence. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. He claims that 

both parents have an obligation to provide for Child, and the logical inference 

from the finding is that Father contributed half of Child’s clothing. Mother 

testified that Father did not return the clothing she sent with Child for 

visitations and told Mother the clothes were his because he paid child support. 

Tr. Vol. 2 at 87-88. The Parenting Time Guidelines states that, “[t]he the 

custodial parent shall send an appropriate and adequate supply of clean 

clothing with the child and the non-custodial parent shall return such clothing 

in a clean condition.” Ind. Parenting Time Guideline I(B)(3). We conclude 

that Finding 18 was supported by the record. 

[29] Father maintains that Finding 19, which provided, “The child exhibits anxiety 

before going to [Father]’s residence for some reason,” was not supported by the 

record. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. He asserts that, because Anderson testified 

that she was unable to determine the source of Child’s anxiety, no evidence 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 20 of 37

supported a causal link that the anxiety was caused by Father. Anderson did 

testify that Child experienced anxiety and bedwetting, but she was not sure of 

the reason behind this, and she opined that the anxiety was due to transition 

and that it could be “with father, but [she] couldn’t speak to that.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 

201-02. Mother also testified that Child had begun to wet her bed before she 

went to Father’s home. Id. at 81. This evidence was sufficient to support an 

inference by the trial court that Child was experiencing anxiety prior to going to 

Father’s home, and therefore, Finding 19 was supported by the record.

[30] Father contends that Finding 20, which stated, “[Father] did not want midweek visits for [Mother] if he were granted custody and [Mother] given 

parenting time,” was not supported by the evidence. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 

12. Father claims that the finding is a misinterpretation of his “testimony, 

reasoning, and logic” and that the finding did not mention the best interest of 

Child. Appellant’s Br. at 29. During the hearing, when asked what his proposal 

for Mother’s visitation would be if he was given custody, Father stated “[t]hat 

she would have [Child] every other weekend plus, . . . liberal visitation for 

holidays and birthdays and vacations.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 195. When questioned at 

another time what he thought would be appropriate for visitation, Father 

testified “I think alternating weekends work well” and “if distance is a concern 

for [Mother], could you extend the weekends a bit, rather than having the 

midweek sort of visits.” Id. at 76. Evidence was presented to support Finding 

20.

[31] Finding 21 stated, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 21 of 37

The Court finds of paramount significance that while [Father]

claims he is concerned about the child’s safety while in 

[Mother]’s care, such being the crux of his Petition, that [Father]

never once stated or asked of the Court that [Mother]’s husband, 

Joe Mullica, be restricted either from the home entirely should 

[Mother] remain the custodial parent or during parenting time 

should the Court grant physical custody to [Father]. This 

indicates to the Court that [Father] is not as truly concerned with

danger in [Mother]’s home while Joe Mullica is there as [Father]

claims to be.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. Father contends that this is not a finding of fact, 

but a conclusion by the trial court and that, during his testimony, he articulated 

his fear for child’s safety. While we agree with Father that Finding 21 

contained conclusory language, the factual statements are supported by the 

evidence. Nowhere in the record did Father request that Joe somehow be 

restricted from the home if Mother retained custody or during Mother’s 

visitations should Father receive custody. Further, contrary to Father’s 

assertion, the trial court did find that Father claimed he was concerned for 

Child’s safety while in Mother’s care, but questioned the strength of his 

concern. We do not conclude that Finding 21 was clearly erroneous.

[32] Father next argues that, based on the record, it is clear that the evidence did not 

support the trial court’s findings, and the findings are clearly erroneous and do 

not support the trial court’s judgment to deny Father’s petition for modification 

of custody of Child. As explained above, the evidence presented supported the 

trial court’s findings, and we conclude that the trial court’s judgment was 

supported by the findings and the record. It is not necessary that each and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 22 of 37

every finding be correct, and even if one or more findings are clearly erroneous, 

we may affirm the judgment if it is supported by other findings or is otherwise 

supported by the record. Clary-Ghosh v Ghosh, 26 N.E.3d 986, 990 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015), trans. denied. When reviewing the accuracy of findings, we first 

consider whether the evidence supports them and then consider whether the 

findings support the judgment. Id.

[33] Here, the findings showed that Child, who was eight years old at the time of the 

hearing, had lived consistently with Mother for Child’s entire life and that 

Mother had physical custody of Child since the divorce in 2012. Although 

Child was the only child of the marriage between Mother and Father, Mother 

had other children including an older child, with whom Child had a close bond. 

Testimony was given by a family therapist, Anderson, that if Child were to 

spend less time with her siblings, especially her older sister, it would have a 

substantial effect on Child and all of the children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 196-97. While 

less contact between any child siblings who have grown up together could be a 

substantial change, the specific children in this case present a much stronger 

case that less contact between them would be harmful. Child suffers from 

ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder and has been in counseling with Adult 

and Child services since kindergarten, which Mother felt was important to 

continue because the counseling teaches Child important everyday skills such as 

grooming and homework and skills to help in her relationship with her older 

sister, who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome. Id. at 82-83, 85. Anderson also 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 23 of 37

noted that Child has anxiety before going to Father’s house, but was not sure 

why this was occurring. Id. at 201-02. 

[34] Although the trial court acknowledged that there had been incidents of 

domestic violence between Mother and Joe, the evidence showed that Child 

had not been a victim of domestic violence and had not been present when the 

incidents between Mother and Joe had occurred. Id. at 110, 191-92. FCM 

Oakes testified that she spoke with Child, who told FCM Oakes that she felt 

safe in Mother’s home, and FCM Oakes found that the allegations that Child 

was a CHINS were unsubstantiated. Id. at 56, 58. There was also testimony 

that Mother and Joe were seeking treatment and learning ways to help them 

cope with stress and to deal with situations and talk with each other. Id. at 111; 

Tr. Vol. 3 at 7-9. Mother also testified that she had recently quit her stressful 

employment with the postal service and was training to drive a school bus, 

which would allow her to spend more time with her children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 112-

13. 

[35] The trial court found it compelling that, although Father stated he was 

concerned with Child living in Mother’s home due to Joe’s anger and domestic 

violence issues, Father did not request any restriction of Joe being around when 

Child visited if custody was modified in favor of Father. The trial court 

interpreted this as demonstrating that Father’s actual reasoning for custody 

modification was that he just wanted to have custody of Child and not that a 

change of circumstances had occurred. Tr. Vol. 4 at 37. We find this to be a 

reasonable inference and within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 24 of 37

findings supported its judgment, and the trial did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Father’s petition for custody modification. Father’s argument that 

Mother’s ability to protect is compromised is a rehashing of his prior assertions 

and is a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do on 

appeal. Miller, 965 N.E.2d at 108. 

III. Parenting Time

[36] Father next argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his 

parenting time by not allowing mid-week visitations with Child. In matters of 

child custody and visitation, foremost consideration must be given to the best 

interests of the child. Richardson v. Richardson, 34 N.E.3d 696, 701 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015) (citing Lindquist v. Lindquist, 999 N.E.2d 907, 911 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013)). We will generally reverse child visitation decisions only upon a 

showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence 

or reexamine the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Instead, we view the record in 

the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision to determine whether the 

evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom support the trial court’s ruling.

Id.

[37] Father takes issue with several of the trial court’s findings, contending that they 

are not support by the evidence. Factual findings are only clearly erroneous 

where there is no support for them in the record, either directly or by inference; 

a judgment is only clearly erroneous when it applies an improper legal standard 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 25 of 37

to proper facts. Johnson, 999 N.E.2d at 59. In either case, we must be left with 

the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. 

[38] Under Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2, a trial court may modify an order 

granting or denying parenting time whenever such modification would be in the 

best interests of the child, but a trial court shall not restrict a parent’s parenting 

time unless it finds that such parenting time might endanger the child’s physical 

health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development. Our Supreme 

Court has held that:

[e]xtraordinary circumstances must exist to deny parenting time 

to a parent, which necessarily denies the same to the child. If the 

trial court finds such extraordinary circumstances do exist, then 

the trial court shall make specific findings regarding its 

conclusion that parenting time would endanger the child’s 

physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional 

development.

Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 765 (Ind. 2013). Therefore, even though 

Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2 uses the word “might,” this court has 

previously interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict 

parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the child’s physical 

health or emotional development. Hatmaker v. Hatmaker, 998 N.E.2d 758, 761 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. 

[39] Here, the trial court made the following determinations regarding parenting 

time:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 26 of 37

26. [Father] shall be entitled to exercise parenting time per the 

Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

27. Guidelines shall mean every other weekend, holidays, and 

special days as delineated in the guidelines.

28. [Father] shall not be entitled to the mid-week parenting time 

contemplated by the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The 

Court has never been in favor of transporting children back and 

forth mid-week. The child in this case does not like the midweek transportation that has heretofore occurred under the most 

recent custody agreement and [Father] testified that if given 

custody he would not want [Mother] to have mid-week parenting 

time. Given these circumstances, the Court therefore believes 

that the mid-week visit called for by the Indiana Parenting Time 

Guidelines is inappropriate in this case and not in the best 

interest of the child.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 13. 

[40] It is apparent from the trial court’s order that it restricted Father’s parenting 

time with Child from what is set out in the Parenting Time Guidelines. In 

section II(D)(1)(b) of the Parenting Time Guidelines, it states that regular 

parenting time for a non-custodial parent of a child over the age of three 

includes, “One (1) evening per week, preferably in mid-week, for a period of up 

to four hours but the child shall be returned no later than 9:00 p.m.” In the 

introduction to section II of the Parenting Time Guidelines, it states that the 

provisions contained in that section “represent the minimum recommended 

time a parent should have to maintain frequent, meaningful, and continuing 

contact with a child.” Ind. Parenting Time Guidelines II(A). Therefore, by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 27 of 37

ordering that Father was not entitled to mid-week parenting time with Child, 

the trial court restricted his parenting time, which is not permitted “unless [the 

trial court] finds that such parenting time might endanger the child’s physical 

health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development.” Ind. Code § 

31-17-4-2. 

[41] We do not find it apparent from the face of the trial court’s order that it found 

that parenting time with Father would endanger Child’s physical health or 

significantly impair Child’s emotional development. The trial court found that 

Child exhibited anxiety before going to Father’s house, but no reasoning for this 

anxiety was given. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. In its conclusion determining 

that Father shall not be entitled to mid-week parenting time, the trial court 

found that Child did not like mid-week visitation, that Father would not have 

given Mother mid-week visitation had he been granted custody, and that the 

trial court was not in favor of transporting children back and forth mid-week as 

reasons justifying its determination. Id. at 13. This reasoning is not sufficient 

to show that mid-week parenting time with Father would endanger Child’s 

physical health or significantly impair her emotional development. We, 

therefore, reverse the trial court’s parenting time determination and remand to 

the trial court to determine whether mid-week parenting time with Father 

endangers Child’s physical health or significantly impairs Child’s emotional 

development. If not, we direct the trial court to restore Father’s parenting time 

to that which is recommended as the minimum time, including mid-week 

visitation or equivalent time, under the Parenting Time Guidelines.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 28 of 37

IV. Child Support

[42] Father asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to 

recalculate his child support obligation. In reviewing the trial court’s decision 

regarding the modification of child support, we reverse only for an abuse of 

discretion. Holtzleiter v. Holtzleiter, 944 N.E.2d 502, 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 

An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, including any reasonable 

inferences therefrom. Id. “Whether the standard of review is phrased as ‘abuse 

of discretion’ or ‘clear error,’ the importance of first-person observation and 

preventing disruption to the family setting justifies deference to the trial court.” 

Id. (quoting MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938, 940-41 (Ind. 2005)). 

[43] Father argues that the trial court “abdicated its role as a fact finder, failed in his 

responsibilities, and abused his discretion” in it is decision to keep Father’s 

child support obligation at the same amount as originally ordered in the Agreed 

Entry. Appellant’s Br. at 40. Father contends that there was substantial evidence 

presented regarding the parties’ incomes that would have enabled the trial court 

to make a determination regarding child support. He maintains that the trial 

court’s failure to make a finding as to the parties’ incomes for child support 

purposes was an abuse of discretion and not supported by the facts and 

circumstances presented to the trial court.

[44] In its order, the trial court determined that “both parties incomes are in a state 

of flux such that an accurate child support calculation cannot be made at this 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 29 of 37

time.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 14. The trial court then ordered that Father’s 

child support obligation of $500 per month originally ordered in the Agreed 

Entry should remain in effect. Id. Although Father characterizes the trial order 

as abdicating its role as a fact finder, the trial court effectively denied Father’s 

request to modify the existing child support order. Under Indiana Code section 

31-16-8-1(b), a child support order may only be modified if: (1) there are 

changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms 

unreasonable; or (2) a party has been ordered to pay an amount that differs by 

more than twenty percent from the amount that would be ordered by applying 

the child support guidelines. In making its determination that the parties’ 

incomes were not certain enough to make an accurate child support 

determination, the trial court essentially found that it could not be determined if 

a substantial enough change had occurred to justify a modification in Father’s 

child support obligation.

[45] This determination by the trial court was supported by the evidence. Mother’s 

income was in a state of flux as of the time of the hearing. She had previously 

worked for the postal service and had chosen to resign from the postal service 

rather than return after her maternity leave. Mother testified that she decided to 

leave her employment with the postal service in order to pursue employment as 

a bus driver, which would offer a work schedule that allowed for more time 

with her children. Tr. Vol. 2 at 10-11, 112-113. At the time of the hearing, 

Mother was in training to get her CDL license and was earning between $12 

and $13 per hour while training. She was only allowed to train for two to four 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 30 of 37

hours per day, but when she obtained her CDL license and passed the training 

test, she would then make $21 an hour and would be considered a substitute 

bus driver, working four to six hours a week depending on her route. Mother 

would not be guaranteed to work a full week until she becomes a bus driver 

with a route of her own, which would take almost a year. At the time of the 

hearing, she was working part time in her brother’s cell phone store for 

supplemental income. Mother worked approximately twenty hours per week, 

making $8 per hour. She also stated that she would be eligible for a 

commission check from her brother’s store after about two months of 

employment. Tr. Vol. 3 at 228. There were many facets of Mother’s income 

that were uncertain at the time of the hearing that made it difficult to ascertain 

an income that would be accurate for any length of time. 

[46] Father’s income was also in a state of flux at the time of the hearing. Father 

was working part time as a tutor at both Ivy Tech and Bender and Rocap and 

earned $13-14 per hour at Ivy Tech and $40 an hour at Bender and Rocap. 

Father testified that he hoped to obtain new clients with the tutoring agency

because he had been there six months, and after six months, he will “move up 

the pecking order” where there are opportunities to get additional clients. Tr. 

Vol. 3 at 192. Father testified that he was looking for additional employment 

that would pay more than he was presently making. Id. at 190. He also 

expected that a vacant rental property that he owned will become occupied, 

which would provide him with more income. Id. at 147. Father stated that he 

had applied for four or five jobs in the year since he moved back to the United 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 31 of 37

States. He had previously worked as a franchisee of a Subway restaurant in 

England. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court raised its concerns 

that Father was underemployed and had only applied for four or five positions. 

Tr. Vol. 4 at 39. The many unknowns regarding Father’s income at the time of 

the hearing that made it hard to determine an accurate income. We conclude 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the parties’ 

incomes were uncertain, and it could not determine an accurate child support 

calculation at that time, thereby ordering the existing child support obligation to 

remain in effect.

Cross-Appeal Issues

V. Admission of Evidence

[47] Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded

evidence of events that occurred prior to the June 26, 2014 Agreed Entry. The 

trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Curry v. 

State, 90 N.E.3d 677, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. We will only 

reverse a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence upon a showing 

of an abuse of that discretion. Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 278 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2018). An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court's decision is 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the 

court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. When evidence is 

erroneously excluded, reversal is only required if the error relates to a material 

matter or substantially affects the rights of the parties. Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 

446, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In determining whether an error is harmless, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 32 of 37

we ‘must assess the probable impact of that evidence upon the jury.’” Id. 

(quoting Swingley v. State, 739 N.E.2d 132, 134 (Ind. 2000)). Where the 

wrongfully excluded testimony is merely cumulative of other evidence 

presented, its exclusion is harmless error. Id. (citing Sylvester v. State, 698 

N.E.2d 1126, 1130 (Ind. 1998)). 

[48] Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when declined to admit 

evidence of events that occurred prior to the date of the Agreed Entry on June 

26, 2014 that originally determined custody and parenting of Child. Mother 

contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the 

evidence because such evidence demonstrated a pattern of domestic violence by 

Father during the marriage that was relevant to the determination of custody 

and the best interest of Child. Mother maintains that this evidence was 

admissible even though it concerned events that occurred prior to the Agreed 

Entry because no custody proceeding occurred before the Agreed Entry 

between the parties, and, therefore, there was no opportunity for the parties to 

present evidence relevant to custody to a trial court. 

[49] Under Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21(c), “[t]he court shall not hear evidence 

on a matter occurring before the last custody proceeding between the parties 

unless the matter relates to a change in the factors relating to the best interests 

of the child.” In Dwyer v. Wynkoop, 684 N.E.2d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. 

denied, this court held that this section does not apply to situations where 

custody was originally determined solely by stipulation of the parties because 

“when parents stipulate as to who will have custody of the child and the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 33 of 37

court grants a summary dissolution on the basis of such agreement without 

hearing evidence on the issue of custody, there is no ‘custody proceeding’ that 

would activate this section of the statute.” Id. at 249. 

[50] In the present case, Mother offered evidence of events that had occurred prior 

to the June 26, 2014 Agreed Entry, and Father objected based upon Indiana 

Code section 31-17-2-21(c). Mother responded that the statute permitted the 

trial court to hear evidence prior to the last custody proceeding if it addressed

the best interest of the child and argued that there had not been any previous 

“custody proceedings” because the trial court had not heard any evidence 

concerning custody and parenting time before this hearing. Tr. Vol. 2 at 121-22. 

The trial court sustained Father’s objection and ruled that any evidence prior to 

June 26, 2014 would be inadmissible. Id. at 123. During the second day of the 

hearing, Mother presented the trial court with Dwyer, asked the trial court to 

reconsider its ruling from the previous day, and informed the trial court that she

intended to introduce evidence of domestic violence by Father dating back prior 

to June 26, 2014. Id. at 214-16. The trial court ruled that its prior ruling would 

stand. Id. at 222. Mother moved for a continuance, which the trial court 

denied, and at the end of the second day of the hearing, Mother again made the 

request that the trial court reconsider its ruling and permit evidence previous to 

the June 24, 2016 date at the next hearing date, which the trial court again 

denied. Id. at 223-24; Tr. Vol. 3 at 148-51. 

[51] Assuming without deciding that the trial court abused its discretion in 

excluding Mother’s proffered evidence, we conclude that it was harmless error. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 34 of 37

When evidence is erroneously excluded, reversal is only required if the error 

relates to a material matter or substantially affects the rights of the parties. Hill, 

51 N.E.3d at 450. Mother has not shown how the excluded evidence related to 

a material matter or substantially affected her rights. The evidence she was 

attempting to have admitted at the hearing occurred during her marriage to 

Father, which was dissolved in October 2012. Therefore, any evidence she 

wished to present to the trial court occurred approximately five years prior to 

the custody hearing. Although the proffered evidence may have shown a 

pattern of domestic violence by Father prior to October 2012, Mother has not 

established that the pattern is continuing or how it affects a custody 

determination in 2017. Additionally, because Father’s petition to modify 

custody was denied, and Mother was awarded physical custody of Child, she 

has not established that the trial court’s exclusion of her proffered evidence has 

substantially affected her rights. We, therefore, conclude that even if the trial 

court abused its discretion in excluding Mother’s proffered evidence, it was 

harmless error.

VI. Attorney Fees

[52] We review a decision to award attorney fees and the amount of any award for 

an abuse of discretion. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 59 N.E.3d 343, 354 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2016), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s 

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

before the court. Allen v. Proksch, 832 N.E.2d 1080, 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 

Indiana follows the American Rule, which ordinarily requires each party to pay 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 35 of 37

his or her own attorney’s fees. Id. “Generally, attorney’s fees are not 

recoverable from the opposing party as costs, damages, or otherwise, in the 

absence of an agreement between the parties, statutory authority, or [a] rule to 

the contrary.” Id.

[53] Mother argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for attorney fees. 

She asserts that she is entitled to attorney fees under Paragraph 11 of the 

Agreed Entry, which stated, “In the event that either party wishes to petition 

the court for a modification of child support, then the party which petitions the 

court shall be responsible for the other party’s attorney fees.” Appellant’s App. 

Vol. 2 at 20. Mother contends that because Father’s petition to modify custody 

also contained a request for child support to be modified, her request for 

attorney fees was required to be granted unless the trial court found fraud, 

duress, or lack of consent in the signing of the Agreed Entry.

[54] Dissolution settlement agreements may contain binding provisions regarding 

attorney fees, including allocation of fees in future disputes between the parties.

Stone v. Stone, 991 N.E.2d 992, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Pond v. Pond, 

700 N.E.2d 1130, 1136 (Ind. 1998)). Unless a trial court finds evidence of 

fraud, duress, or other imperfections of consent, the court must give full force 

and effect to a settlement agreement’s attorney fees provisions. Id.

[55] Here, although the Agreed Entry contained Paragraph 11, a provision requiring 

the allocation of attorney fees to the opposing party when the other party 

sought a modification of child support, this was not what occurred in the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 36 of 37

present case. Father filed a petition for modification of custody, claiming 

changed circumstances such that a change of custody was in the best interests of 

Child. Incidental to his requested modification of custody, Father requested 

modifications of child support and parenting time and for all other just and 

proper relief because if the trial court granted his petition to modify child 

custody in his favor, child support and parenting time would have to likewise be 

modified to reflect the change in custody. We conclude that Paragraph 11 did 

not contemplate a requirement to pay attorney fees when a party filed a motion 

to modify custody, which incidentally includes a request to modify child 

support, as such a requirement is not explicitly stated. If such a requirement 

was contemplated, it could have been explicitly written into the Agreed Entry. 

We, therefore, find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Mother’s request for attorney fees.

[56] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Bradford, J., concurs.

Baker, J., concurs with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A04-1711-DR-2624 | August 14, 2018 Page 37 of 37

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher Vicoli,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner,

v.

Ashley Mullica (Vicoli),

Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A04-1711-DR-2624

Baker, Judge, concurring.

[57] I fully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to note that I believe 

the facts in the record readily support a conclusion that Father’s mid-week 

parenting time would significantly impair Child’s emotional development. 

Specifically, Child has ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder and gets upset 

when her routine is disrupted. Tr. Vol. II p. 85-86. As such, it would be 

eminently reasonable to conclude that a mid-week disruption would pose a risk 

to Child’s emotional well-being. But because there are no specific factual 

findings to that effect in the trial court’s order, I agree with the majority’s 

resolution of this issue.