Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 8

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

Joseph E. Morrison

Roselawn, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re Support of J.D.

T.F.,

Appellant,

v.

J.J.D.,

Appellee

November 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

37A03-1507-JP-906

Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court

The Honorable John D. Potter, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

37C01-1501-JP-8

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] In the context of a paternity case filed by the State to establish J.J.D.’s 

(“Father”) child support obligation as to J.D. (“Child”), T.F. (“Mother”) filed a 

petition to maintain custody of Child. The petition also sought an order for 

restricted therapeutic parenting time for Father, and requested that the trial 

court appoint a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for Child. The trial court ordered 

Mother and Father to complete certain parenting and domestic violence 

courses, granted Father limited parenting time, provided that Father would be 

entitled to additional parenting time after completing a domestic violence class, 

and denied Mother’s request for the appointment of a GAL. Mother filed a 

motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

[2] Mother now appeals. We affirm.

Issue

[3] Mother presents a single issue for our review, which we restate as whether the 

trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition requesting the 

appointment of a GAL for Child.

Facts and Procedural History

[4] Child was born to Mother and Father, out of wedlock, on May 27, 2010. 

Mother and Father’s relationship with one another was tempestuous. This was 

also true of Father’s relationships with other family members, including 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8

Mother’s adult daughter (“Sister”) and minor son from prior relationships, and 

Child’s maternal grandmother (“Grandmother”).

[5] Eventually, Father left the home, and Mother sought public assistance. As a 

result, the State of Indiana sought an order requiring Father to pay child 

support for Child; the State filed its petition in the Jasper Circuit Court on 

January 7, 2015.1 Within that action, on January 12, 2015, Mother filed a 

Petition for Custody and Restricted Therapeutic Parenting Time. On January 

20, 2015, Mother filed her Petition for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem.

[6] On March 5, 2015, a hearing was conducted on Mother’s petitions. At the 

beginning of the hearing, Father and Mother stipulated to Father’s paternity of 

Child. After this, the trial court heard testimony from Mother, Father, 

Grandmother, and Sister. Much of this testimony centered on the fractious 

relationship between Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Sister. However, 

testimony was also presented concerning Mother’s and Sister’s concerns for 

Child’s wellbeing if Father were granted unsupervised parenting time. The 

testimony referenced to Father’s prior history of substance use, his prior 

criminal history, his living situation, his viewing of pornography, and other 

family relationships. 

 

1 The State took no part in the portions of the proceedings Mother presently appeals, and filed a notice of 

non-involvement with this Court on October 20, 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8

[7] On March 6, 2015, the trial court denied Mother’s petition for appointment of a 

GAL, granted Father limited parenting time at Father’s sister’s home, ordered 

Father to complete domestic violence coursework, and ordered both Father and 

Mother to complete a parenting course. The court further stated that, upon 

Father’s completion of the domestic violence coursework, Father would be 

afforded additional parenting time in conformance with Indiana’s Parenting 

Time Guidelines.

[8] On March 12, 2015, the court conducted a hearing on the State’s petition to 

establish child support, and entered a support order against Father.

[9] On March 25, 2015, Mother filed her motion to correct error, challenging the 

trial court’s decisions as to custody, parenting time, and appointment of a GAL 

for Child. A hearing was conducted on May 27, 2015, where additional 

testimony was presented and Mother submitted for the court’s review 

substantial amounts of social media correspondence. The trial court 

subsequently took the matter under advisement.

[10] On June 5, 2015, Mother, without assistance of counsel, sent a letter to the trial 

court in which she alleged that Father had perjured himself during the hearing.

[11] On June 12, 2015, the trial court denied Mother’s motion to correct error.

[12] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8

[13] Here, Mother appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to correct 

error, which challenged the court’s order denying her petition for appointment 

of a GAL for child. Generally, we review trial court decisions concerning both 

motions to correct error and the appointment of a GAL for an abuse of 

discretion. City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2010), trans. denied; In re Adoption of B.C.S., 793 N.E.2d 1054, 1060 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2003). Here, Mother appeals, but Father has not filed a responsive brief. 

“When an appellee does not file a brief in response, the court is not required to 

advance arguments on the appellee’s behalf.” Neal v. Austin, 20 N.E.3d 573, 

575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations omitted). In the absence of an appellee’s 

brief, “we may ordinarily reverse if the appellant presents a case of prima facie 

error. However, even when an appellee brief is not filed, questions of law are 

nonetheless reviewed de novo.” Id. (citations omitted).

[14] “A juvenile court may, at any time, appoint a guardian ad litem or court 

appointed special advocate, or both” to represent a child’s interests in family 

and juvenile court proceedings. Ind. Code § 31-32-3-1(a). The purpose of a 

GAL is to “represent and protect the best interests of the child,” I.C. § 31-9-2-

50(a)(1), and to “provide the child with services requested by the court, 

including: (A) researching; (B) examining; (C) advocating; (D) facilitating; and 

(E) monitoring; the child’s situation.” I.C. § 31-9-2-50(a)(2). 

[15] While there are certain situations in which Indiana statutes require the 

appointment of a GAL on a child’s behalf, e.g., I.C. § 29-3-2-3 (requiring 

appointment of a GAL in certain guardianship proceedings), whether to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8

appoint a GAL is ordinarily a matter our statutes “leave to the juvenile court’s 

discretion.” K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind. 2006). In paternity cases, 

Indiana courts have tended to follow a policy

recognizing the importance of protecting the child’s interests where 

there exists a potential adversity of interests between the mother and 

child. A child's interests in a paternity determination include matters of 

money, familial bonds, cultural heritage, and medical history, and 

these interests may clash with the mother’s interests in preserving her 

marriage or preventing the child’s relationship with the presumptive 

father from being disturbed.

Matter of Paternity of H.J.F., 634 N.E.2d 551, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), abrogated 

on other grounds by K.S. v. R.S., 669 N.E.2d 399 (Ind. 1996). Where, as here, 

“the paternity action is ... instituted primarily to obtain child support,” the 

interests of the child are often “not adverse to the mother’s interests,” and a 

GAL may not be required. Id. Where a termination of parental rights is at 

stake, however, appointment of a GAL may be essential to protect the child’s 

rights. Id.

[16] Here, Mother argues that the trial court erred in its refusal to appoint a GAL. 

Mother directs this Court to the contentious behavior of Mother and Father 

toward one another and toward other family members, including Grandmother 

and Sister, Father’s admission of prior excessive alcohol use, Father’s criminal 

history, and his alleged violation of a protective order as evidence that a GAL 

was necessary for Child. Mother goes on to assert in her brief that “no one 

present advocated on behalf of the best interest of [Child],” Br. at 27, and 

argues that a GAL could have investigated Father’s living conditions and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8

continually monitored “the situation as things progressed.” Br. at 29. Mother 

ultimately asserts that “neither Mother nor Father would ever truly advocate on 

behalf of their Minor Child” because “their interests conflict with the interests 

of [Child].” Br. at 29.

[17] Mother has failed to provide examples from the record that could establish that 

either she or Father failed to advocate on Child’s behalf. See Ind. Appellate 

Rule 46(a)(8)(A) (requiring that arguments in appellate briefs “be supported by 

citations to the ... parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.”) Nevertheless, this 

Court notes from its review of the record that Mother testified that she was 

concerned that Father might be negligent in his care of Child due to his history 

of alcohol abuse and a limited criminal history; that she was concerned about 

the overall safety and quality of his living situation; that she suspected Father 

might have harmed Child on one occasion; that Father had viewed 

pornography on numerous occasions; and that she had begun seeking therapy 

for Child, whose developmental progress had improved significantly since 

beginning treatment. In addition, Mother presented testimony from Sister, who 

testified that she was concerned that Father would be negligent in caring for 

Child.

[18] Upon review, we find no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court erred 

in denying Mother’s request for a GAL, because it is not clear on the face of the 

evidence presented that Child’s interests were not adequately represented before 

the trial court. Mother has thus failed to carry her burden on appeal of 

establishing prima facie error. As Mother advances no other basis upon which 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 37A03-1507-JP-906 | November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8

to challenge the trial court’s order on her motion to correct error, we 

accordingly affirm the decision of the trial court.

[19] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J. and Crone, J., concur.