Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 1 of 16 

### 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 de fense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case

.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Denise F. Hayden Lac y Law Office, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE Rodney T. Sarkovics Sarkovics Law Carmel, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF IND IANA

G .L.W. , Appellant

- Respondent ,

v.


### J .W.S. , Appellee

- P

etitioner May 7, 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 19A

- DR

- 2277 Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court The Honorable Andrew Bloch , Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 29D0 3

- 1002

- DR

- 176

Crone , Judge
.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 2 of 16 

### Case Summary

[1] G.L.W. ( Father ) appeals the trial co urt ’ s orde r modifyi ng his child support obligation for his now sixteen

- year - old daughter , H.W., from his marr iage to
J .W.S. ( Mo ther ). The trial court a lso or dered Father to pay a portion of
M other ’ s attorney ’ s fees

. O n appeal, Father assert s that the trial court ’ s order is clearly er roneous

. F inding no clear error , we affirm

.


### Facts and Procedural History

[2] T he par ties were married , and one child , H.W., was born of the marriage. The marriage wa s dissolved by decree on December 20, 2010

. Mother was granted sole le gal and primary physi cal custo d y of H .W. an d re loca ted to Sou th
C arolina in 2013. Fathe r reside s i n Camby , I n diana

. Pursuant to a court orde r entered on October 1, 2013, Father was granted parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines when d istance is a m a jor f acto r and was ord e red to pay child support of $141 per week.

[3] In November 2018, Mother enrolled H .W. at Compass Rose Academy in Wabash , Indiana on the advi ce of medical pr ofessionals to address H.W. ’ s troubling behavior and her men tal health

. Mother deci ded on Compass Rose after do ing rese arch on similar residential behavioral treatment faci lities a round the country

. F ather did not agree with H.W. ’ s enrollment at Compass Rose

a nd has refused to pay an ything to ward her attendance d espite Mother ’ s requests that h e do so.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 3 of 16 [4] On December 19, 2018, Mother filed a motion for rul e t o sho w caus e asking the trial court to hold Fath er in contempt for failing to pay a portion of H.W. ’ s attendanc e at Compass Rose as a medical expense pursuant to the “ Six Perc e nt (6%) Rule ” of Guidel ine 7 of the Indiana C h ild Support Guidelines. Appe lla nt ’ s App . at 3 4

. Father responded by filing his ow n mo tion for rule to show cau se asking the trial court to hold Mother in contempt for restric ting his telephone

co ntact with H .W. and de nyi ng hi m winte r - break parenting time in Dece mber
2018. Father also stated i n his motion that he o pposed Mother ’ s decis ion to enroll H.W. at Compas s Rose

.

[5] A hea ring on the parties ’ motions was com menced on February 5, 2019 ; however , matters were not resolved , and the hearing w as continue d to Feb ruary 26, 2019

. In the inter im, Father filed a petition for modification of bo th legal and physical custody, parenting time, and child support

. Father re quested that he be granted primary phy sical cus tody and sole legal c u stody of H.W., and
that Mother be ordered to pay child s upport and granted p arenting time

. A hearing on the co ntempt motions wa s held on F ebruary 26, 2019 . T hereafter, the trial court entered an orde r addressing the parties ’ res pective m o tions, de n ying b oth , and f inding n either party in contempt

.

[6] On March 22 , 2019, Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time

. Mother requested that the court restrict Father ’ s parenting time su bsequent to H.W. ’ s

re lea se from Compass Rose

. T h e trial court s c he duled a h earing on the parties ’ respective petitions fo r modifi c ation for May 2019 . T h at hearing was later continued

. O n July 17, 2019, Mothe r fi led a moti on to compel discoveryCo u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 4 of 16 asserting that Fat her had provided late and incomplet e discovery responses despite n u m erous request s . The trial court granted that mot ion t o com pel , ordered Father to comply with specific discov ery re quests, and stated that the issue of Mother ’ s attor ne y ’ s fees incurred with relatio n to the motion would be determined at a subsequent hear i ng.

[7] The trial court held a hearing on pending issues o n July 30, 2019. Prior to the presentatio n of evidence , Father withdrew his request to modify custody and Mother with drew her request to modify paren ting time. Accor di ngly, the only issues remaining be fore the court were child support a nd Mother ’ s request for

atto rney ’ s fees in conju nction with her motion to compel dis covery

. T he tr ial

court issued an order with sua sponte findings of fact on September 1 6 , 2019

. Regar ding child support, the t rial c o urt found in pertinent part:

14. [H.W.] was placed at Compass Rose by Mother due to her mental heal th diagnos e s. 15. The cost for [H.W. ] to attend Com pass Rose was $225 per day upon her enrollment . [H .W.] received a s chola rship e ffective April 1, 2 019 w h ich reduced her cost to $1 12.50 per day.

16. Com pass Rose charges for coun seling and other expens es separate from its per diem rate. 17. Father has paid $0 to wards [H.W

. ’ s] Compass Rose expenses. This includes [H.W

. ’ s] daily per diem and all othe r exp e nse s associated with her commit ment including counseling and/or the rapy cost s.

... .Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 5 of 16 29

. The Comment ary to Gu idel ine 1 of the Indiana Child Support Guid elines state [s] tha t there are an infinite number of situations which p ermit the Court to de viate f r o m t he
reco mmended Gui deline amount fo r a support obligation including amo n g other t hi ngs that one or both partie s pay union dues, a party pays support fo r an elder ly parent; and the noncustodial parent purchase s school clothes

. See Commentary to Gui d eline 1.

30. Mo ther searched ex tensivel y for [H.W. ’ s] placement to treat her me ntal heal th d iagnoses prior to e n rol lment at Compass Rose. Mother as custodial parent who lived with [H.W

. ] on a day

- to

- day bas is and based upon the advice of mental health professio n a ls deter mined that the best course of action for [H.W. ’ s] mental health was place ment at a facility whic h p rovides the servi ces that C ompass Rose offers. Fathe r has offered no financial assistance in this regard. Mother also testified th at the cost to see and visi t [H.W.] is high considering the distance between her South C aro lina resi dence and Compass Rose. So me of Mother ’ s claims are dubious with regards to her selection of C ompass Rose, however. She claimed at one p oint t o have examined every facility i n the Uni ted S tates before
se ttling on Compass Rose

. The Court is also co ncerned a bout the ov erall cost o f Compass Rose and the parties ’ ability to pay for it without help from other sour ces. When considering the inc ome shares model, the C o urt wonder s if M o ther and Father had stayed together whether they would be able to afford Compass Rose as an intact fa mil y unit. Nevertheless, there is no petition pending before t he Court with respect to the continued use of Compa ss Rose, just how payment should be d ivid e d.

31. The Court has previousl y deter mined by order that Father is not in conte mpt for his non - con trib ution to any of [H.W. ’ s] Compass Rose expenses ( See O rder dated March 1, 2019). The evidence has also been th at [H.W. ’ s ] enrol lment at a facility such
a s Compas s Rose is necessary

.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 6 of 16 32. The Court finds that Father ’ s weekly gro s s inc ome is $1,17 6 per week based on the information he presented to the C ourt, including the payment of personal exp ense s by his employe r, which happens to be his Wife.

33. .... T h e Court fi nds that Mother ’ s gross weekly income should be imputed at $1, 032.69.

... . 35. The recom mended weekly child support obligation without deviation is $142.00 ( See attached worksheet). Which is virtually unchanged from the Court ’ s l ast order of $1 4 1.00 per week. The cost, as noted elsewhere in this Order, of Compass Ros e is sign ificant and the treatme nt [H.W.] is receiving is necessary. [H.W.] also has other exp en ses that are not co vered by t he per diem c h arge of Compass Rose, in that she still req u ires the normal expenditu res that one would spend on a te enage daughter. The Court finds that de viation i s justified due to the expense of [H.W.] attending C ompass Rose and order [s] that Father ’ s weekl y support obligation is $200.
36. [H.W.] has been en r olled at C o mpass Rose since prior to Father ’ s filing of his request to modif y supp ort

. Accordin gly, the C o ur t will als o find that the modified sup port obli gation began on February 15, 2019 which is the first F riday f ollowing Father ’ s petition to modify.

3 7. The e vidence was that Father has timely paid his support obligation thro ugh the h earing. T he differenc e in child support between the present order and the modified support obligation is $59 per wee k. Acc ordin gly, Father ’ s support arrearage is $1,770.0 0 as of Se ptember 30, 2 019.

38. Father ’ s support arrearage shall be paid through the Clerk o f the Court and to Mother within 60 days of t he Court ’ s order.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 7 of 16 39. T he 6% rule shall apply and Mother shall be r esponsible for the first $864.24 annually in [H. W

. ’ s] u nin sured medical expenses and thereafter any additional uni nsured medical expenses shal l be paid 53% by Father and 47 % by Mother.

40 . The 6% rule according to the worksheet in place required that Mot her pa y the first $768 in uninsu red medical expe n ses for [ H.W. ’ s] benefit

. Con sidering the cost of C ompass Rose , the support modification hav ing been filed in February and the retroactive support obligation, the Court will use $721 as the threshold for [H .W. ’ s] 2019 uninsured medical exp ense c alculation

. Appealed Order at 2

- 7

. Regarding attorney ’ s fee s , the cou rt found:

47. Mother f iled a mot ion to comp el on July 17, 2019, which was granted. The Court ’ s order compelling dis covery is dated July 18, 2019

. 48. The p leading had 26(F) correspondence dated April 26 and Ju ne 18, 201 9 attached to it. Mother incurred attorney fees of $1,201 solely with respect to discovery issues. (Trial Rule 37). Mother is awarded said fees (round ed to $1,200) and payable wit h in 30 days of the date of this Order.

49. Mother had a tot al of $9,017 in attorney fees which inclu ded the $ 1,201 related to discov er y issu es.
50. S e parate and distinc t from discovery issues the C o urt is authorized to awar d attorney fees. Ind. Cod e 31

- 15

- 10

- 1

. The C o urt shall consider the re sources of the parties, their e c on omic cir cumstances and abil ity to en gage in gainful employm ent, and any other factors which bear on the reasonableness of the award. The court does not b elieve Father would hav e co ntributed to C o mpass Rose, if Mother had not brought th is action.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 8 of 16 5 1. T h e C o urt has considered such fa ctors. Mo ther is awarded an addi tional $1,800 in attorney fees.

52. T h e total fee award to Mother is $3,000 which shall be paid within 90 days of t he d ate of this order and any unpaid sum thereafter shall bear interest at the r ate of 8% per annum and ent ered as a judgment against Fathe r.

Id . at 8

- 9 (cita tion om itted)

. This appeal ensued.



### D is cussion and Decision
Section 1

– The trial court ’ s order mo dify ing Father ’ s child support ob ligation is not clearly erroneous
.
[8] Father appea l s f rom th e trial court ’ s most recent order dated September 16,
2019

. F ather contends that the trial court ’ s order modifying his child support obligation and orderin g him to p ay M other $ 2 00 each week in child supp ort is clearly erroneous

. We p lace a stro ng emphasis on a trial court ’ s discretion in determining child support obligations and will set aside a child support modification only whe n it is clearly erroneous. Lea v. Lea , 69 1 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. 1998)

. As already noted , in its or der, the court entered sua sponte findings of f act

. In such a situat ion,
the specific factual findings control only the issues th at they cover, and a ge neral judgment standard applies to issues upon which there are no findings. It is not n ecessa ry t hat e ach and every finding be correct, and even if o ne or more findings ar e clearly erroneous, we may affirm the judgment if it is supp orted by other findings or is otherwise supported by the record. We may affirm a general judgment with sua spon te fin ding s on any legal theory supported by the evidence

. In reviewing theCo u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 9 of 16 accuracy of findings, we first consider whether the evidence suppor ts them. We then consider whether the findings support the judg ment. We will disregard a finding only if it is cl early
erro neous , which means the record contains no facts to s upport it either direc tly or by inference.
Clary

- Ghosh v. Ghosh , 26 N.E.3d 986, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (c itat i ons and quotation marks omitted ), trans. denied

.

[9] Ind ia na Code Section 31

- 16

- 8

- 1 g overns mo dification of child support orders and provides in relevant part :
(a) Provisions of an order with res pect to child support ... may be modified or revoked. (b) Except as provided in se ction 2 of thi s chapter, modification may be made only: (1) upon a s howing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; o r (2) up on a showing that : (A) a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs b y more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; an d (B) the order requested to be modi f ied or r evoked was issued at least t welve (12) months before the petition requesting modif ication was fi led

. ( E mphasis add ed). “In any proceeding for the award of child support, there shall be a re buttable presumptio n that the am ount of the award which w o uld

resu lt from the applicati on of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines is the

correct amo unt of child s upport to be awarded.” Ind. Child Support Rule 2

. We observe that a trial court may d eviate f rom the Child Suppor t Guidelines,Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 10 of 16 but if it does so “the court shall enter a writ ten fi nding art iculating the factual circumstances supporting that conclusion.” Ind. Child Suppor t Ru l e 3

.

[10] I n challeng ing the trial court ’ s modification of his child support obligation,
Fa ther makes no assertion that H.W. ’ s behavior and resulting enrollment at Compass Rose d i d not consti tute a change in c ircumstances so subst a n t ial and continuing as to m ake the terms of his prior child support obligation
unreasonable pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31

- 16

- 8

- 1 (b)(1)

. 1 Ins te ad , Father argues that the trial court ’ s up ward deviation fro m t he a mount

re commended by application of the C h il d Support Guidelines is u n warra nted
and ther efore clearly erroneous

. 2 We disagree.

[11] T he trial court here entered extensive w ritten findings articulating the fa ctual

c ircumstances supporting t he upward deviation o f Father ’ s obli gation from the $142 weekly a mount recommended by applicat ion of the Gu i d elines

. 3 Specif ically, the trial cour t found that the per d iem cost for H.W. to attend

1 Although Father makes a strange argument that modification of his support obligation cannot be just ified pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of Ind iana Code Section 31

- 16

- 8

- 1 , Father ignores that the statute is written in the disjuncti ve and presents alt er native methods of seeking modification

. MacLafferty v. MacL afferty , 829 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind. 2005)

. As noted above , Father makes no claim that H.W. ’ s behavior and resulting enrollment at Compa ss Rose d i d not consti t ute a subst antial and continuing change in c ircumstances since the prio r child support order

. 2 Father makes s ome arguments that are diffi cult to understan d , and while w e do our best to fully address the overriding issue rai sed, we decline to spe cifically address c ertain s ubparts of his argumen t s t hat are disjointed
or poorl y articulated

. 3 During the hearing , Father requested that his weekl y chil d support o bligation be modified d ownward from his prior obligation of $141 to j ust $1 5 based upon evidence of h is gr oss income that the trial court cl early did not find credible

. Tr. Vol. 2 at 156 ; Father ’ s Ex. E.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 11 of 16 Compass Rose was significant , and t he court further found that the evidence
pre s en ted demonstrat ed that the treatment H.W. w as receiving at Compass
Rose was n ecessary f or her ment al health . T h e co urt also found that H.W.
in curred additional expens es in att ending Compa ss Rose that are not covered by the per diem charge, and that she f ur ther required the nor mal expenditures
that one would spend on a teenage daughter

. The evidence presented supports these findings , these findings support the court ’ s deviation from the amount recommended by the Guidelines , and Father directs us to no con t ra ry evidence

. Father has not demonstrat ed that the trial court ’ s deviation fr om th e G uidelines is clearly erroneous

.

[12] Still, Father argues that the court ’ s modification order is clearly erroneous because i t “would seem ” that an incre ase in his child supp o rt obligation due t o H.W. ’ s enroll me nt at C ompass Rose , coupled with t he court ’ s order that he p ay a portion of H.W. ’ s uninsured heath care expenses pursuant to the six pe rcent rule, results in a “ double dip ” for Mother as far as health care expens es are

c on cer ned

. A ppellant ’s Br. at 12 . This is not the case.

[13] H ere, Father has been ordered to cont ribute to two different types of expenses.
A s br ief ly discuss ed above, the evidence indicates that there are s ignificant co sts associated with H.W. ’ s attendance at Compass R o se that would not qualify as

un insured health care expenses

. Those are acc ounted for within , and form the basis und erlying , the increase in Father ’ s weekly support obligation

.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 12 of 16 [14] However , t here are also expens es associated with H .W. ’ s attendanc e a t Compass Rose that w ould qualify as unin sured health care expenses and, with respect to those , the trial court ordered Mother to pay the first $721 of H.W. ’ s uni nsured heath care expenses pursuant to the six percent r ule , 4 and thereafter Father pays fi fty

- three percent a nd Mother pays forty

- seve n percent

. W hi le we decline to parse Father ’ s incorrect calculations , we reject his assertion that he is
somehow contributing to the s ame heath care expen se s , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e s i x
p e r c e n t f i g u r e , t w ice

. C ontr ary to Father ’ s suggestion , this amount is alr eady

ac counted for in Father ’ s weekly child support obligation and is not a s eparate and additional amount

. The Commentary to Guideline 7 of the Child Suppo rt Guidelines exp lains , with regard to un i n sured health c are exp enses, that t he

“ noncustodial paren t is, in effect, pr epaying health care expen ses every time a support payment is made. Consequently, th e Guidelines require that [the] custodial parent bear the cost of uninsured health care expenses up to six
perce nt (6%) of the Basic Child Support Obligat ion found on Line 4 of th e Child Support Obl igation Worksheet

.... ” Father has not de monstrated t hat th e
court ’ s modification order results in him contributing twice to the same health

care expenses

.

[15] When all is s ai d an d done, Father ’ s overriding argument c ircles back to th e fact

t hat he disagrees wi th H .W. ’ s placement at Compass Rose in the first place

4 As noted earlier, t h e tria l court adjus ted i ts six percent calcu lation slightly from th e submitted c hild s upport worksh eet based u pon various factors

. Neither part y ch allenges the resulting $721 figure.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 13 of 16 bec au se it is an expense “ he cannot afford and somethi ng he do es not believe is
necessary. ” Appella nt ’ s Br. at 17

. In short, Father claims that he should n ot be required to p ay any t hing toward H.W. ’ s attendance at Compa ss Rose through an increase in child support, health care contribution , or other wise , because he simply believes that she could get out patient tr eatme nt somewhere cheaper. However, that ship has sailed

. The trial court emp hasi z ed that the evidence
i ndicated that H .W. clearly needs treatment at a facility , and the court apt ly noted that “there is no petition pending before the Court with respect to the continued use of Compass Rose, just how p ayment should be divided.” Appealed Order a t 5

. 5 Father ’ s assertion on appeal that h is contribution to ward
H.W. ’ s attendance at Comp ass Rose should be zero and Mother ’ s contribution should be 100 p ercent is unper suasi ve

.

[16] As a final matter, Fat her suggest s that t he trial court cl earl y erred in fail ing to reduce his child support obligation for time s when H.W. was re sidi ng and as she continues to res i de at Compass Rose rather than wit h Mother. Father did not make th is argument to the trial court, and t here fore it is wai ved o n appeal. See, e.g. , Plank v. Cmty. Hosp. of Ind ., Inc. , 981 N.E.2d 49, 53 (Ind. 2013) (“[A]ppellate review presupposes that a litigant ’ s argumen ts have been raised and considered in the trial court.”); Carney v. P atino , 114 N.E.3d 20, 2 9 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App . 2018) (“The trial court cannot be found to hav e erred as to an issu e or

5 Although Father ’ s petition to modif y custody addressed the choice of Compass Ros e for H.W. ’ s treatment , Fat her withdrew that petition prior to the trial court ’ s hearing , and thus that issue was no longe r pending

. Appealed Order at 1.Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 14 of 16 argument that it never truly had an opportunity to consider.”), trans. denied (201 9).

[17] I n sum, Father ha s not demonstrated that the trial court ’ s or der modif ying hi s child support ob li gation is clearly erroneous

. Ac cordingly, we affi rm the trial

court ’ s order

. 

### Se c tion 2

– Father has waived his challenge to t he trial cou rt ’ s or der that he pay a portion of Mot her ’ s attorney ’ s fees
.
[18] Father very b r iefly asserts that the trial court erred in orderi ng him to pay a portion of Mo ther ’ s attorney ’ s fees . Th e trial cour t ordered F ather to pay $1200

as a sanction for his discovery vi olati on s and an additional $18 00 in f ees, for a total of $3000

. As a general matt er, we note th at w e afford trial courts broad discretion in deciding whether an award of att orney ’ s fees is wa rranted. Russe ll
v. Russell , 693 N.E.2d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 199 8) , trans. denied

. We will

reverse a tr ial court ’ s decision r egarding attorney ’ s fee s only when we determine that it has abused this discretion. Stratton v. Stratton , 8 34 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)

.

[19] We decline to address th is issue d ue to F ather ’s lack of cogent re asoning

. It is well established that t h e argument section of an app ellate br ief must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues prese nted, supported by cogent reasoning , and e ach contention must be supp orted by citation s to the author ities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied

on

. Ind. Appell ate Rule 46 (A) (8) (a)

. Failure to present a cogent argumentCo u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 15 of 16 results i n waiver of the issue on appeal. Mar tin v. Hunt , 130 N.E.3d 135, 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

.

[20] Here, Father has not pr ovided cogent argument, citatio n to sufficient relevant
l egal precedent, or citation to pages in the re cord

. I n the mere f ive sentences he
dedicates to his entire argument on this issue, Father repeatedly refers to the

cou rt ’s award of “ $1 ,000.00 ” in atto rney ’s f ees, claim ing that such order is “illogical ” give n “ the parties [ ’ ] incomes and Father ’s financi al s ta tus

. ” Appellant ’s Br. at 20. As stated above, the trial court award ed Mother $3000 in attorney ’s fees : $1200 as a d iscovery sanction , and $1800 p urs uant to Indiana Code Section 31

- 15

- 10

- 1

. 6 Father does not explain the relevance of the $1000 figure and, whi le it is possibly just a repetitive typographical error, w e are unable to disc ern ex actly what he is challengi ng and why , a s he makes no attempt to diff erentiate the lega l standard for awarding attorne y ’ s fees pursuant

to the dis solution sta tute fr om the standard f or imposing sanctions for discovery violations. Moreover, Father ref erences evidence of his alleged inability to pay

an y portion of Mother ’ s fees , but he provid es us no ci tation to the append ix or record on appeal

. We will not search the record for evide nc e in support of his claim

. In sum, w e decli ne to put m ore effo rt i n to addressing Father ’ s argument

t han he put into making it

. Father has waived our review o f this issu e.

6 Th at s ection provid es that , in fam ily law/ diss olu tion of marriage cases, “ [t] he court periodically may order a party to pa y a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaini ng or def ending any proceeding
u nder this article and for attorney's f ees

.... ”Co u rt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- DR

- 2277 | May 7, 2020 Page 16 of 16 [21] A ffirmed.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.