Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 1 of 24

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

Andrea L. Ciobanu

Ciobanu Law, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Lauren E. Harpold

Lainie A. Hurwitz

Ruppert & Schaefer, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

L.B.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Appellee-Petitioner

November 27, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-DC-993

Appeal from the Hamilton 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jonathan M. 

Brown, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D02-1706-DC-5218

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] L.B. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions thereon, 

and order (“the Order”), granting M.B. (“Father”) sole legal custody for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 2 of 24

medical decisions regarding their minor children, An.B., W.B., and As.B. (“the 

Children”) and ordering that the Children be vaccinated according to the

recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”). Mother

asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding one of her expert 

witnesses and committed clear error in granting Father sole legal custody as to 

medical decisions and ordering that the Children be vaccinated. We conclude 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding one of Mother’s 

expert witnesses and that the trial court’s decision to grant Father sole legal 

custody as to medical decisions is not clearly erroneous. Further, given that 

Father wants the Children to receive vaccinations, any error in the trial court’s 

order that the Children be vaccinated is harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The undisputed findings of fact and the evidence most favorable to the trial 

court’s judgment show that Mother and Father were married in August 2002. 

An.B. was born in July 2006, W.B. was born in August 2008, and As.B. was 

born in January 2015. All three Children have health issues. An.B. has a 

history of food allergies, W.B. is diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome, and As.B. 

was born without a thyroid and with a congenital heart defect. Appealed Order 

at 3. As.B. requires the care of many specialists including an endocrinologist, 

pulmonologist, cardiologist, and a cranial facial team. Dr. Kristen Gollnick is 

the Children’s pediatrician. Dr. Damir Matesic is An.B.’s allergist. Dr. Zeina 

Nabhan is W.B.’s and As.B.’s pediatric endocrinologist. Dr. Catherine Rupp is 

a medical doctor who provided uninsured alternative allergy treatments to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 3 of 24

An.B. starting in September 2016 and became involved in the Children’s 

thyroid care in October 2016. Dr. Rupp is not an endocrinologist. Dr. Casey 

Delcoco (formerly Reising) is a medical doctor Mother selected during the 

pendency of the case to oversee As.B.’s and W.B.’s thyroid care and 

simultaneously serve as the Children’s primary care provider with Dr. Gollnick. 

Dr. Delcoco is not an endocrinologist.

[3] Until 2015 or 2016, the Children received scheduled vaccinations pursuant to 

the AAP. None of the Children experienced negative reactions due to the 

vaccinations they received. Id. at 61. However, Mother decided that she no 

longer wanted the Children to be vaccinated and began seeking various 

alternative medications and therapies. Mother sought and received a vaccine 

medical exemption for the Children from Dr. Rupp. Father wants the Children

to continue to be vaccinated and disagrees with the general direction Mother 

has taken regarding the Children’s healthcare. 

[4] On June 5, 2017, Father filed a petition to dissolve the parties’ marriage. On 

August 30, 2017, the trial court approved the parties’ agreed provisional order, 

in which Mother and Father agreed to share legal and physical custody of the 

Children except as to their medical care and to undergo a custodial evaluation 

with Dr. Linda McIntire. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 22. They also agreed that 

they had “differing and substantial views regarding the medical and health 

needs” of the Children and that they would maintain the status quo regarding 

the Children’s medical care until the final hearing. Id. On March 2, 2018, Dr. 

McIntire filed her custody evaluation with the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 4 of 24

[5] On April 24, 2018, Father filed a motion to enforce the agreed provisional 

order, alleging that Dr. McIntire had recommended counseling for An.B. and 

had provided a list of doctoral-level psychologists, but the parties had been 

unable to agree to a therapist for An.B. Id. at 89. Father stated that he wished 

to use a provider recommended by Dr. McIntire and requested the court to 

select a therapist. Mother filed a response. Following a hearing, on June 22, 

2018, the trial court issued an order appointing a therapist for An.B. Id. at 103.

[6] On July 13, 2018, Father filed a verified petition for rule to show cause, alleging 

that Mother had selected a new primary care provider, Dr. Delcoco, for the 

Children without his knowledge or consent and that Mother had not listed 

Father as an authorized party to receive the Children’s medical information in 

violation of the agreed provisional order. Mother filed a response. After a 

hearing on August 8, 2018, the trial court found Mother in contempt of the 

agreed provisional order for failing to notify Father of appointments she made 

with Dr. Delcoco and for changing the Children’s primary care provider 

without Father’s consent. Id. at 115. The trial court ordered that Dr. Gollnick 

remain the Children’s primary care provider. Id. 

[7] In August 2018, the parties each filed a final witness and exhibit list. Father 

filed a motion to exclude the testimony of three of Mother’s listed expert 

witnesses: Dr. Alvin Moss, Dr. Rupp, and Dr. Delcoco. Mother filed a 

response. Following a hearing, on September 21, 2018, the trial court entered 

an order granting Father’s motion in part and excluding Dr. Moss as a witness 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 5 of 24

on the basis that his testimony was irrelevant to the issues before the court. Id.

at 139. 

[8] On September 25, 2018, the trial court approved the parties’ partial final 

agreement, which provided that the parties agreed to joint physical custody of 

the Children and joint legal custody on education and religious issues. Id. at 

140. In addition, the partial final agreement required that Mother and Father

agree to a reunification therapist to repair the relationship between Father and 

An.B. Id. at 141. On November 6, 2018, Father filed a petition to enforce the 

partial final agreement, alleging that Mother had failed to respond to his 

attempts to communicate with her to select a reunification therapist. Id. at 152. 

At a later hearing, Mother and Father agreed to the selection of a therapist. 

[9] On November 29, 2018, the trial court entered a partial decree for dissolution of 

marriage, which granted Father’s petition for dissolution of the marriage and 

incorporated the partial final agreement. Id. at 162-63. The partial decree for 

dissolution awarded Mother and Father joint physical custody of the Children 

and joint legal custody on education and religious issues and declared that the 

only remaining issue for the court to decide was the issue of legal custody as to 

medical decisions for the Children. 

[10] On September 25 and 26, November 8 and 15, and December 6, 2018, the trial 

court heard evidence on the issues of legal custody as to medical decisions and 

whether the Children should receive vaccinations. Mother and Father each 

sought sole legal custody of medical decisions regarding the Children. Tr. Vol. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 6 of 24

4 at 120; Tr. Vol. 6 at 237-38. Drs. McIntire, Gollnick, Rupp, and Delcoco

testified. Dr. McIntire testified that in her opinion, Father should be granted 

sole legal custody for the Children’s medical care. Dr. Gollnick testified that it 

was her recommendation that the Children be vaccinated in accordance with

the guidelines established by the AAP and the Centers for Disease Control

(“CDC”). In addition, Dr. Gollnick testified that due to As.B.’s minor heart 

defect, As.B. was at a higher risk for some of the diseases the vaccinations 

protect against. 

[11] Dr. Rupp testified regarding her reasons for executing vaccine medical 

exemptions for the Children, but she also testified that her basis for signing the 

exemptions is inconsistent with the AAP guidelines and that the Children’s

medical history does not exempt the Children from immunizations required by 

the guidelines set forth by the AAP and the CDC. Dr. Delcoco testified that 

she had only seen the Children for two appointments and she agreed with Dr. 

Rupp’s recommendation that the Children be medically exempt from 

vaccinations and explained the reasons for her agreement. 

[12] The parties requested findings of facts and conclusions thereon.1 Mother and 

Father each filed proposed findings and conclusions. On April 17, 2019, the 

trial court issued a sixty-nine-page Order granting Father sole legal custody as 

1 Although Father states that he requested findings of facts and conclusions thereon, the chronological case 

summary indicates that Mother filed a motion for findings and conclusions on August 31, 2018. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. 2 at 8. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 7 of 24

to the Children’s medical decisions and ordering that the Children be 

vaccinated in accordance with the schedules set forth by the AAP or otherwise 

suggested by Dr. Gollnick or Dr. Stephanie Bergstein in the event that Dr. 

Gollnick is unavailable. The Order provides in relevant part as follows:

19. The record reflects that both parents are very knowledgeable 

concerning the medical care and needs of their children;

....

33. The parties disagree concerning the overall health care 

necessary for the children, including which medical providers to 

use or how many medical providers are necessary; whether to 

utilize alternative and holistic medical treatments; whether to 

follow recommendations of providers; whether to use out of 

network and uninsured providers, treatments and interventions; 

what type of thyroid medication should be used for [As.B.] and 

[W.B.]; whether over the counter pain medication should be 

administered; and the children’s diet and use of toothpaste 

without fluoride;

.... 

43. Dr. Rupp’s medical exemption suggests [An.B.] has had 

several anaphylactic reactions (none due to vaccinations). 

However, per the testimony of both parents, [An.B.] has only 

had two reactions when she accidentally ate food containing egg 

in her younger years and vomited as a result;

....
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 8 of 24

105. Dr. Catherine Rupp maintains Rupp Hollistic Health and 

Integrative Medicine. From her testimony and her website, Dr. 

Rupp is a MD, who maintains a medical practice using 

alternatives to western medicine and a holistic medical practice. 

Dr. Catherine Rupp is no longer Board Certified in Pediatrics nor 

Internal Medicine and she testified she does not follow the 

guidelines set forth by the [AAP];

106. Mother’s decision to obtain a vaccine medical exemption 

was not at the initiation of any of the children’s medical 

providers. ....

....

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

....

24. Mother and Father both believe they are fit and suitable to 

make medical legal custody decisions concerning the minor 

children, but it is apparent from the record that the parties are 

currently struggling to communicate effectively regarding the 

minor children. It does not appear they currently have the ability 

to work together for the best interests of their children at this 

time;

....

26. Evidence was presented whereby Mother and Father 

communicated effectively with these decisions until the past three 

to four years, for which their disagreements as to the medical 

care for the children drove a wedge into their marriage which 

culminated in the instant cause of action;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 9 of 24

27. The parties generally agree on the medical issues that 

concern their children, but the issue of vaccinations and thyroid 

medication for the minor children form the bulk of the divide for 

the parties;

....

30. Given these differing views, the parents are unable to

cooperate to advance the children’s welfare with respect to health 

care. Mother often seeks alternative and holistic treatments, some 

of which can be expensive and unnecessary. The record

demonstrates that Mother tends to seek out providers to endorse 

her medical views or a treatment she thinks the children need. 

On the other hand, Father seeks to follow the recommendations 

of the children’s on-going primary care doctor and specialists. 

Father objects to Mother’s desire to use alternative and nonconventional therapies, medications and doctors. While Mother 

may be an outstanding advocate for her children’s healthcare 

needs, it is not readily apparent whether that has netted better 

results or whether she is exposing her children to increased health 

risks;

....

35. The record is clear that Mother has kept Father generally 

informed concerning the children’s medical care, but there have 

been some situations the Court finds concerning with regards to 

Dr. Delcoco and Dr. Rupp. As a result, this Court questions 

whether Mother will be forthright with providing information to 

Father if she were granted sole legal custody for medical 

decisions regarding the minor children;

....
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 10 of 24

42. All three of the children have received some of their 

recommended vaccinations;

43. No evidence was presented that the children have had any 

negative reaction to any vaccine they have been given;

44. Though the Court has considered joint legal custody 

regarding medical decisions for the parties in this case, the court 

questions the fitness and suitability of Mother to maintain joint 

legal custody for medical decisions in light of the core disputes of 

the parties;

....

46. The Court reasonably fears that if either party has sole 

decision[-]making as to legal custody for medical issues, that 

party will not consider any input from the other parent, however, 

the parties were clear that neither believed joint legal custody 

would be appropriate for this case;

....

48. As the parties spent a majority of the marriage utilizing 

vaccines for their children, and as the parties now disagree on 

whether [to] vaccinate the children, the Court will order that all 

three children be vaccinated in accordance with the prescribed 

schedule as set forth by the [AAP];

....

53. .... Mother went behind Father’s back to establish a new 

primary care and thyroid care provider with Dr. Delcoco for the 

children during the pendency of this case, when all eyes were 

watching. Mother failed to put the initial appointment on the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 11 of 24

family calendar, and added [As.B.’s] thyroid appointment on the 

family calendar less than 24 hours before [she] was scheduled to 

be seen. Per Dr. Delcoco’s testimony, it takes months to get into 

her office, and thus Mother could have easily put these 

appointments on the family calendar, and for reasons unknown 

to the Court, chose not to do so. Mother did not offer Father any 

specific information about Dr. Delcoco when asked;[2]

....

57. Father has demonstrated a history of cooperating with 

Mother, and it is clear from the record he follows the 

recommendations of the children’s health care providers;

58. Father has demonstrated a pattern of being cooperative and 

compromising with Mother, even if he does not agree with a 

decision Mother wants to make, and he has relied on Mother’s 

judgment for most medical decisions regarding the children;

59. Mother has not demonstrated a pattern of being fully 

cooperative and compromising with Father, but seems rather 

inflexible in her decision[-]making process. While having an 

opinion and standing one’s ground are important, it doesn’t 

necessarily work well in a co-parenting environment;

60. Mother has demonstrated she frequently makes unilateral 

medical and/or health care decisions concerning the girls, 

2

 Conclusion 53 also stated, “Mother was not compliant with this court’s preliminary orders regarding legal 

custody.” Appealed Order at 63. In her reply brief, Mother argues that the trial court’s determination that 

she was in contempt for failing to abide by the parties’ agreed provisional order was improper because the 

order was issued on August 30, 2017, and the medical appointment in question occurred on August 28, 2017.

Appellant’s Reply Brief at 7-8. Even if the agreed provisional order was issued after the appointment was 

made and Mother was not technically in contempt of the agreed provisional order, Mother does not dispute 

any other part of Conclusion 53.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 12 of 24

knowing they are contrary to Father’s wishes and sometimes 

against conventional norms. If the children were just Mother’s,

this Court would not be a barrier to Mother’s wishes. However, 

there are two parents in this family and decision-making for 

healthcare in this family is going to be rebalanced;

61. Mother has demonstrated she has shut Father out of major 

medical decisions, even during the pendency of this case, by 

trying to go behind his back to establish a new primary care 

provider and endocrinologist for the girls; unilaterally changing 

their thyroid medications; and failing to compromise on the 

vaccination of the children, even when Father was agreeable to a 

slower vaccination schedule;

62. Mother asserts Father does not have in-depth knowledge or 

recollection of the children’s medical history, and this is not 

supported by the record. To the contrary, despite Mother being 

the stay at home parent and primarily charged with the

responsibilities of getting the children to their doctor 

appointments, Father is familiar with the children’s medical care;

....

65. If both parents were granted legal custody, based on the 

history of this case, and the evidence before this court, it is 

anticipated the parties will reach an impasse on important and 

fundamental medical decisions relating to their children, and this 

Court will undoubtedly be required to intervene to resolve their 

on-going disputes. This court has already had to intervene three 

times concerning disagreements over the medical care of the 

children;

....
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 13 of 24

68. Mother has not been honest about the children’s medical 

issues/history, and the Court is concerned she will continue to 

slant the truth in order to obtain medical care for the children 

which she believes is appropriate, even though inconsistent with 

the recommendation of doctors. For example, Mother reported 

to [An.B.’s] allergist (Dr. Matesic) that it was Dr. Gollnick who 

had concerns regarding [An.B.] taking the MMR vaccine. 

However, Dr. Gollnick testified she never gave Mother any 

reason to believe the vaccinations needed to be slowed down for 

any of the children, and continued to ask Mother at every doctor 

visit to schedule more shots even if Mother refused. Further, Dr. 

Gollnick testified it was Mother who controlled the schedules of 

the shots, and not Dr. Gollnick;

69. The Court questions Mother’s candor. Mother was not 

truthful during her deposition regarding her knowledge that Dr. 

Gollnick had in fact declined to sign a vaccine medical 

exemption for the children. Mother testified during her 

deposition she would be speculating about Dr. Gollnick’s 

opinion concerning the vaccine medical exemptions when in fact 

Mother already knew Dr. Gollnick had indeed declined to sign 

the exemption for specific reasons;

....

71. [The] Court does not find Dr. Rupp’s certification of the girls’ 

medical waivers legitimate. Dr. Rupp did not administer any test 

to support her basis for the waiver, even though testing was 

available to her, and did not confirm the family history with 

Father, who she knew did not support a medical waiver 

exempting the children from vaccinations. Dr. Rupp could have 

easily performed such tests and confirmed the family history with 

Father. Most significantly, none of the children have experienced 

a negative reaction to vaccinations, and none of the medical 

records reflect a concern that the children have or will experience 

a reaction to a vaccination. Dr. Rupp simply believes the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 14 of 24

children could experience a reaction, but also believes any person 

is susceptible to a negative reaction to any treatment. Perhaps 

this explains Dr. Rupp’s focus on natural and holistic medicine, 

and the decision to maintain a medical practice that sometimes 

prescribes treatments that are contrary to the guidelines of the 

[AAP] and the [CDC]. None of Dr. Rupp’s fees are covered by 

insurance;

72. This Court finds the testimony of Dr. Gollnick most reliable, 

given she has been the children’s treating physician for the 

longest period of time and thus has a comprehensive 

understanding of their health care needs. She follows the 

standard of care and guidelines set forth by the [AAP], [CDC], 

and the Indiana State Department of Health, and both parties 

continue to trust her judgment and desire for her to continue as 

the children’s primary care provider. Dr. Gollnick is an approved 

provider under the children’s health insurance plan;

73. This Court makes no determination regarding the medical 

efficacy of vaccinations, their effectiveness, or their risks. This 

Court has determined the children will be vaccinated based upon 

the desire of one of their parents, and as such, the Court orders 

the children to be vaccinated; and

74. As such, at this time THE COURT AWARDS Father sole 

legal custody for medical decisions regarding the minor children.

Appealed Order at 7, 9-10, 13, 23, 52, 58-69 (underlining in original changed to 

italics). This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 15 of 24

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

excluding Mother’s expert witness.

[13] Mother challenges the trial court’s exclusion of her expert witness, Dr. Moss. 

The trial court is the gatekeeper for the admissibility of expert opinion under 

Indiana Evidence Rule 702, which provides,

(a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will 

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine 

a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, 

skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the 

form of an opinion or otherwise.

(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is 

satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert 

testimony rests are reliable.

[14] “A trial court’s determination regarding the admissibility of expert testimony 

under Rule 702 is a matter within its broad discretion and will be reversed only 

for abuse of that discretion.” Person v. Shipley, 962 N.E.2d 1192, 1194 (Ind. 

2012) (quoting TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201, 216 (Ind.

2010)). “We presume that the trial court’s decision is correct, and the burden is 

on the party challenging the decision to persuade us that the trial court has 

abused its discretion.” Id.

[15] At the hearing on Father’s motion to exclude, the trial court explained its 

reasoning for excluding Dr. Moss as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 16 of 24

[A]s Dr. Moss hasn’t treated the [Children], all Dr. Moss can do 

is offer this court an opinion on the efficacy of vaccinations. And 

as Dr. Moss has not treated any of these [C]hildren, I don’t know 

how Dr. Moss could provide any greater assistance to this Court, 

than the other doctors that are expected to testify, that have 

actually treated the [C]hildren with regards to their health, their 

physical health, and their issues with regard to vaccines.

Tr. Vol. 2 at 156. 

[16] Mother contends that Dr. Moss’s expertise is relevant because the vaccination 

issue was a “battle of the experts of whether the [C]hildren should be medically 

exempt from vaccinations,” and “by calling the medical exemptions ‘not 

legitimate’ the trial court has implicitly conceded [that] experts regarding 

medical exemptions are certainly relevant to a determination in this case.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 24. Mother was permitted to call two expert witnesses, Dr. 

Rupp and Dr. Delcoco, both of whom were medical doctors who had seen the 

Children and who offered testimony specifically about the Children’s health 

issues and whether vaccination was medically indicated for each of them. They 

testified that in their opinions, the Children should not be vaccinated and 

explained the basis for their opinions. Dr. Moss apparently had not seen or 

treated the Children. The trial court reasonably concluded that Dr. Moss 

would have nothing to add to Dr. Rupp’s and Dr. Delcoco’s testimony. 

Although Mother claims that Dr. Moss’s testimony was relevant, all we can 

glean from her briefs is that he was going to be Mother’s expert regarding 

“vaccinations” and was going to testify “regarding the safety and efficacy of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 17 of 24

vaccinations.” Id. at 21, 24. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court 

abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Moss’s testimony.

Section 2 – The trial court’s decision to grant Father sole legal 

custody for medical decisions regarding the Children is not 

clearly erroneous.

[17] Mother argues that the trial court erred in granting Father sole legal custody for

medical decisions regarding the Children. We observe that this Court accords

great deference to trial courts in family law matters: 

Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial court 

judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted 

because of their unique, direct interactions with the parties faceto-face, often over an extended period of time. Thus enabled to 

assess credibility and character through both factual testimony 

and intuitive discernment, our trial judges are in a superior 

position to ascertain information and apply common sense, 

particularly in the determination of the best interests of the 

involved children.

Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011). 

[18] Here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon at the 

parties’ request. Our standard of review is well established:

Where the trial court has entered special findings of fact and 

conclusions thereon, our court will “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 the 

witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). Under our ... two-tiered 

standard of review, we must determine whether the evidence 

supports the findings and whether those findings support the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 18 of 24

judgment. We consider the evidence most favorable to the trial 

court’s judgment, and we do not reweigh evidence or reassess the 

credibility of witnesses. We will find clear error only if the record 

does not offer facts or inferences to support the trial court’s 

findings or conclusions of law.

B.L. v. J.S., 59 N.E.3d 253, 258-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted). 3

 

[19] We note that the Order contains numerous “findings” that are mere recitations 

of witness testimony. Findings that merely state that the testimony or evidence 

was this or that are not true findings of fact. Maddux v. Maddux, 40 N.E.3d 971, 

975 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). See also Garriott v. Peters, 878 N.E.2d 4431, 438

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“A court or an administrative agency does not find 

something to be a fact by merely reciting that a witness testified to X, Y, or Z.”)

(quoting In re Adoption of T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)), 

trans. denied (2008). We treat these findings as “mere surplusage” rather than 

harmful error. Perez v. U.S. Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29, 33 (Ind. 1981).

Therefore, we will ignore findings preceded by “testified that” and limit our 

review to the Order’s valid factual findings, regardless of whether they are

labeled “findings” or “conclusions.” Further, we accept unchallenged findings 

as true. McMaster v. McMaster, 681 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). 

3 In her appellant’s brief, Mother failed to provide the standard of appellate review for such an order as 

required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 19 of 24

[20] Initial custody determinations are governed by Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-8, 

which provides in relevant part,

The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in 

accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the 

best interests of the child, there is no presumption favoring either 

parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the 

following:

(1) The age and sex of the child.

(2) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents.

(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to 

the child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of 

age.

(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:

(A) the child’s parent or parents;

(B) the child’s sibling; and

(C) any other person who may significantly affect the 

child’s best interests.

(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s:

(A) home;

(B) school; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 20 of 24

(C) community.

(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals 

involved.

(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by 

either parent.

[21] A trial court may award joint legal custody if it finds that joint legal custody is

in the best interests of the child. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-13. Section 31-17-2-15 

sets forth the matters a trial court is required to consider in determining whether 

joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child:

[T]he court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not 

determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint 

custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The 

court shall also consider: 

(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint 

custody;

(2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and 

able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child’s 

welfare;

(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the 

child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;

(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial 

relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody; 

(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 21 of 24

(A) live in close proximity to each other; and

(B) plan to continue to do so; and

(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the 

home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.

[22] Here, Mother asserts that the trial court erred in granting Father sole legal 

custody for medical decisions regarding the Children because (1) she and Father 

have historically been capable of co-parenting and reaching compromise on 

parenting decisions, including medical issues other than those of vaccinations 

and thyroid medication, and (2) Father has historically had much less 

involvement with the Children’s medical care than Mother. She contends that 

there are less extreme measures than granting Father sole legal custody, such as 

ordering that the Children be vaccinated and granting the parties joint legal 

custody over other medical decisions or granting the parties joint legal custody 

and appointing a parenting coordinator to assist the parties in making medical 

decisions. Mother did not request these arrangements below, but that alone 

would not preclude the trial court from adopting such options as long as the 

arrangement was in the Children’s best interests.

4

4

 Father argues that Mother did not request anything other than sole legal custody for medical decisions, and 

therefore we should reject her argument outright as invited error. To be clear, the trial court is not precluded 

from entering a custody arrangement not specifically advanced by either party so long as that custody 

arrangement is in the child’s best interests. Richardson v. Richardson, 34 N.E.3d 696, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 22 of 24

[23] Mother attempts to argue that the parties’ disagreement was mainly about 

vaccinations, and once that issue was resolved they would be able to cooperate. 

However, the trial court found that although vaccination was a major area of 

disagreement between the parties, the parties also disagreed as to As.B.’s 

thyroid medication, which health providers should treat the Children, and 

whether to utilize alternative medical treatments. Significantly, medical 

decisions for the Children was the only area in which Mother and Father 

declined to agree on joint custody; that is why they sought the court’s 

intervention. Whatever degree of cooperation they were able to achieve in the 

past, they clearly did not believe they could cooperate on medical issues any 

longer, and each sought sole legal custody over those decisions. The trial court 

found that Mother and Father “were clear that neither believed joint legal 

custody would be appropriate in this case.” Appealed Order at 62. The trial 

court also found that Mother seemed inflexible in her decision-making process,

had not shown a pattern of cooperation and compromise with Father, and had 

frequently made unilateral health care decisions for the Children, knowing that 

those decisions were contrary to Father’s wishes. The trial court found that the 

parties had already sought its intervention three times during the pendency of 

the case and that if they had equal decision-making authority, many 

disagreements over medical decisions would arise, leading to an impasse, and 

the trial court would “undoubtedly be required to intervene.” Id. at 66. The 

trial court’s findings show that it carefully considered whether any form of joint 

legal custody for medical decisions would be workable. As for the possibility of 

a parenting coordinator, Mother specifically rejected the appointment of a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 23 of 24

parenting coordinator to assist the parties in making medical decisions for the 

Children, explaining that “[i]t would be another pan in the fire.” Tr. Vol. 6 at 

164. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in 

declining to award joint legal custody for medical decisions. 

[24] To the extent Mother is arguing that the trial court erred in granting Father, 

rather than Mother, sole legal custody for medical decisions, we note that the 

trial court found that Father had a history of cooperation and compromise 

regarding the Children’s health care. In addition to the above findings 

regarding Mother’s lack of cooperation and compromise and unilateral 

decision-making, the trial court also made findings regarding Mother’s lack of 

honesty and candor. Mother told An.B.’s allergist that Dr. Gollnick had 

concerns regarding the administration of the MMR vaccine, but Dr. Gollnick 

testified that she always recommended that Mother schedule the Children’s

vaccinations. The trial court also found that Mother testified at her deposition 

that she did not know Dr. Gollnick’s opinion regarding vaccine medical 

exemptions, when in fact Mother knew that Dr. Gollnick had declined to sign 

vaccine medical exemptions for the Children. As to Mother’s assertion that 

Father’s involvement with the Children’s medical care was limited and he is not 

as knowledgeable as she is regarding the Children’s health care needs, the trial 

court considered and rejected those assertions. Although Father, as the parent 

who worked to provide financial resources for the family, may not have been as 

involved with the Children’s health care as Mother, who was the Children’s 

primary caretaker, that in itself does not call into question Father’s ability to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-993 | November 27, 2019 Page 24 of 24

make health-care decisions in the Children’s best interests going forward. We 

conclude that the trial court’s unchallenged findings support its decision to 

award Father sole legal custody of medical decisions regarding the Children.

[25] As a final matter, Mother contends that the trial court erred in ordering that the 

Children be vaccinated. Because we have determined that the trial court’s 

decision to award Father sole legal custody for medical decisions is not clearly 

erroneous and Father wants the Children to be vaccinated, any error in the trial 

court’s decision to order that the Children be vaccinated is harmless.

[26] Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Order granting Father sole legal custody 

for medical decisions regarding the Children.

[27] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.