Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A04-1512-DR-2285 | June 15, 2016 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John P. Brinson

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Julianna L. Fox

Evansville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven E. Webb,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Marla R. Webb,

Appellee-Petitioner.

June 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Cause No.

87A04-1512-DR-2285

Appeal from the Warrick Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Greg A. Granger, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

87C01-1501-DR-41

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A04-1512-DR-2285 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Steven Webb appeals the trial court’s parenting time order in his dissolution of 

marriage to Marla Webb. We remand.

Issue

[2] We address one dispositive issue raised by Steven, which we restate as whether 

the trial court’s failure to make specific findings and conclusions to support a 

restriction of Steven’s parenting time requires remand.

Facts

[3] Steven and Marla began a relationship in 2004, and they married in 2008. They 

had two children, Gr.W, born in May 2006, and Gi.W., born in October 2009. 

Marla filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in January 2015. In June 

2015, the trial court entered a provisional order that allowed Steven to have 

“supervised day visitation” with the children at his grandmother’s house on 

alternative weekends from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. App. p. 17. After a hearing, 

the trial court entered a decree of dissolution and found, in part:

CHILD CUSTODY:

The Husband was recently laid off from his employment with 

Alliance Coal (Gibson County Coal). The Husband has had a 

prior prescription drug addiction, as well as being treated for 

depression. The Court heard testimony that the Husband was 

not an active participant in his children’s lives.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A04-1512-DR-2285 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 5

The Wife is awarded sole legal and physical custody of the 

parties’ two children.

PARENTING TIME:

The Husband shall have supervised day visitation with the 

children at his grandmother, Charlotte Bickmeyer’s, residence on 

Wednesdays from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and on alternating 

weekends beginning Saturday, December 5, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. 

until 4:00 p.m., and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.

During the Husband’s parenting time his sister, Melanie Akers 

Webb, shall not be present. The parties shall follow the Indiana 

Parenting Time Guidelines for holidays, except during the 

Husband’s holiday time he shall have no overnights.

App. pp. 9-10. Steven now appeals.

Analysis

[4] Steven challenges the trial court’s restriction of his parenting time. A decision 

about parenting time requires us to “give foremost consideration to the best 

interests of the child.” Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 762 (Ind. 2013). 

Parenting time decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

Judgments in custody matters typically turn on the facts and will be set aside 

only when they are clearly erroneous. Id. “We will not substitute our own 

judgment if any evidence or legitimate inferences support the trial court’s 

judgment.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A04-1512-DR-2285 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 5

[5] Steven argues that the trial court erred by not issuing the necessary findings 

before restricting his parenting time. Indiana Code Section 31-17-4-1(a) 

provides:

A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable 

parenting time rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that 

parenting time by the noncustodial parent might endanger the 

child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s 

emotional development.

Our supreme court has explained:

Extraordinary 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). Further, where a trial 

court deviates from the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, the trial court is 

required to issue “a written explanation indicating why the deviation is 

necessary or appropriate in the case.” Ind. Parenting Time Guideline

Preamble(C)(3).

[6] Steven argues that the trial court’s order does not contain the required specific 

findings to restrict his parenting time. Marla concedes that “the trial court did 

not set forth the specific findings required by statute nor the required written 

reason for deviation” from the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Appellee’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A04-1512-DR-2285 | June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 5

Br. p. 9. Marla agrees that we should remand to the trial court “for the purpose 

of making specific findings regarding its order of restricted parenting time.” Id. 

We agree that the trial court’s order lacks the necessary findings and 

conclusions to restrict Steven’s parenting time. We remand for the trial court to 

issue detailed findings regarding this issue. 

Conclusion

[7] Because the trial court’s order lacks the required findings necessary to restrict 

Steven’s parenting time, we remand.

[8] Remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.