Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 1 of 9

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Richard A. Mann

Mann Law, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE S.K.

I. Marshall Pinkus

Pinkus & Pinkus

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

M.G.,

Appellant,

v.

S.K., et al.

Appellees.

December 31, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-DR-712

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Timothy W. Oakes, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D02-1403-DR-7508

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 2 of 9

Case Summary

[1] M.G. (“Mother”) and S.K. (“Father”) divorced in 2015 and agreed that they 

would share legal custody and Mother would have sole physical custody of 

their only child (“Child”). On February 24, 2020, Father was granted joint 

physical custody of Child. Mother appeals, articulating both procedural and 

substantive issues. We find one issue to be dispositive: whether the trial court’s 

order, entered in response to Mother’s written request for Indiana Trial Rule 

52(A) special findings and conclusions thereon, is adequate to permit

meaningful appellate review. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June of 2015, Mother and Father entered into a mediated settlement 

regarding custody of Child, who was then eighteen months old. Father initially

exercised supervised parenting time but progressed to unsupervised parenting 

time in accordance with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.1 Eventually, 

Father moved in with his mother (“Paternal Grandmother”), who is a retired 

teacher. Mother, who works full time and is a student, moved near her parents. 

Her mother (“Maternal Grandmother”) is retired and has historically provided 

after school transportation and care for Child.

1 At some point, Father completed anger management classes as part of a diversion program to resolve a 

charge of Criminal Confinement arising from his alleged conduct toward Mother.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 3 of 9

[3] On March 28, 2019, Father filed a petition for custody modification, seeking 

joint physical custody of Child. Mother filed a cross-petition, seeking to have 

sole legal custody of Child, a petition for appointment of a Guardian ad Litem 

(“GAL”), and a timely motion for Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) special findings 

and conclusions. Mother also alleged Father was in contempt of court for nonpayment of child support and medical expenses. Father satisfied any 

outstanding child support obligation, and on November 26, 2019, the trial court 

conducted an evidentiary hearing on the contested matter of Child’s custody.

[4] The trial court heard testimony from Paternal Grandmother, Father, Maternal 

Grandmother, Mother, and the GAL. Paternal Grandmother testified that 

Mother was uncommunicative and unwilling to give Father additional 

parenting time. Father testified that Mother had never deprived him of courtordered parenting time, but he considered her inflexible about additional 

parenting time, unwilling to communicate, and defensive when he made 

suggestions. Mother also testified that she did not deprive Father of courtordered parenting time but had denied his requests for additional parenting 

time. She opined that Maternal Grandmother should continue to pick up Child 

from school because Father could provide only sporadic transportation due to 

his work schedule and Child would be required on Father’s pick-up days to 

spend significant time in a vehicle. Maternal Grandmother testified that she 

had Child for occasional overnights, without Father having been offered that 

time. She confirmed that she took Child to swim classes and routinely picked 

her up after school.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 4 of 9

[5] The GAL testified that she had no environmental concerns with either parental 

home. She related the opinion of Child’s therapist that Child was bonded with 

both parents. The GAL identified no concerns with Child’s academic progress, 

socialization, or health. She described Child as “happy with her schedule” and 

having no “wish to change.” (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 224.) Based upon Child’s 

apparent thriving under the current custody arrangement and her expressed 

wishes, the GAL opined that there “were no significant changes to warrant a 

parenting time change.” (Id. at 231.) Although the GAL submitted a report 

that referenced some 2015 psychological evaluations of the parents, the trial 

court specifically excluded the evaluations from evidence because they were

stale. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court informed the parties 

that the modification petition would likely be denied, but the court was taking 

the matter under advisement pending the submission of proposed findings and 

conclusions.

[6] On February 24, 2020, the trial court entered an order modifying physical 

custody of Child and ordering that she alternate between parental homes on a 

weekly basis. At Mother’s request, the order was stayed pending appeal. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21, a trial court may not modify a 

child custody order unless the modification is in the best interests of the child 

and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors enumerated in 

Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-8. Section 8 provides that the court shall 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 5 of 9

consider the following factors: the age and sex of the child; the wishes of the 

child’s parent or parents; the wishes of the child, with more consideration given 

if the child is at least fourteen years of age; the interaction and interrelationship 

of the child with the child’s parents, sibling, and any other person who may 

significantly affect their best interests; the child’s adjustment to their home, 

school, and community; the mental and physical health of all individuals 

involved; evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent; 

evidence that the child has been cared for a by de facto custodian; and a 

designation in a power of attorney of the child’s parent or de facto custodian. 

Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8 (2019).

[8] The party seeking modification of a custody order “bears the burden of 

demonstrating [that] the existing custody should be altered.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 

51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016). “[T]his ‘more stringent standard’ is required to 

support a change in custody, as opposed to an initial custody determination 

where there is no presumption for either parent because ‘permanence and 

stability are considered best for the welfare and happiness of the child.’” Id.

(quoting Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96, 98 (Ind. 1992)). Additionally, 

Indiana appellate courts have a well-established preference “for granting 

latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Id. (quoting In 

re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993)). We neither reweigh 

evidence nor reassess witness credibility, and we view the evidence most 

favorably to the judgment. Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 6 of 9

[9] Here, Mother made a written request for special findings and conclusions 

thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). When a trial court enters 

findings of fact pursuant to this rule, we review for clear error, employing a 

two-tiered standard of review. In re the Paternity of M.G.S., 756 N.E.2d 990, 996 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001). First, we must determine whether the evidence supports 

the trial court’s findings of fact and second, we must determine whether those 

findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions thereon. Id. Findings are 

clearly erroneous only when the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made. Bowling v. Poole, 756 N.E.2d 983, 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2001). We do not reweigh the evidence but consider the evidence most 

favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the 

judgment. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal 

standard. Id.

[10] In this case, the trial court signed Father’s proposed order, after making certain 

deletions. The sparse factual findings included: Father historically 

demonstrated love and care for Child and looked out for her health proactively; 

he had demonstrated his ability to care for Child during extended parenting 

time and he participated in Child’s education; Paternal Grandmother is a 

retired teacher; Mother had historically failed to co-parent, had failed to 

respond to Father’s communications via Our Family Wizard as reflected in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 7 of 9

Exhibit 1,2 and had made unilateral decisions regarding Child (such as allowing 

Maternal Grandmother to transport Child to swim class and have overnight 

visits); Mother cancelled an ears/nose/throat appointment for Child that took 

three months to reschedule; Mother “allowed Child to be overweight” without 

formulating a plan of action with Father; and a psychological evaluation had 

shown Father to be “emotionally healthy.” (Appealed Order at 5.) The order 

denotes no particular conclusion of law but includes the following conclusory 

language: “The court FINDS Father capable of providing for [Child]’s best 

interests and thereby GRANTS the petition to modify custody and parenting 

time.” (Id. at 6.)

[11] At the outset, we observe that some of the limited findings lack evidentiary 

support. Although the trial court found that Mother allowed Child to become 

overweight, the evidence did not show that Child was overweight. Child was in 

the 99th percentile for weight for her age, but she was also in the 99th percentile 

for height. The GAL denied that Child appeared overweight. Father conceded 

that he had not been medically advised to attempt to reduce Child’s weight; at 

most, he expressed his concern based on family history of diabetes. Even so, 

there was no evidence that Mother’s conduct contributed to Father’s concern 

over Child’s weight. And although the trial court observed that Father had 

been found emotionally healthy, the trial court had specifically excluded (in two 

2

Father testified that Mother chose not to utilize Our Family Wizard but both parents testified to having 

communicated via e-mail and text. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 8 of 9

separate rulings) the psychological evaluation upon which that observation was 

based.3

[12] As previously stated, a custody modification must be based upon best interests 

of the child and a substantial change in one or more of the statutory factors. See 

I.C. § 31-17-2-21. Generally speaking, the trial court is not required to enter a 

finding as to each factor it considered. Hecht v. Hecht, 143 N.E.3d 1022, 1031 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513, 515 (Ind. 1997)). 

That said, “[s]uch findings are only required if requested in writing pursuant to 

Indiana Trial Rule 52(A).” Id. Here, Mother made a written request for special 

findings and conclusions thereon in accordance with the applicable trial rule.

[13] “[T]he purpose of Rule 52(A) is to provide the parties and the reviewing court 

with the theory upon which the trial judge decided the case in order that the 

right of review for error may be effectively preserved.” Nunn Law Office v. 

Rosenthal, 905 N.E.2d 513, 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Here, the trial court made 

certain factual findings praising Father’s parental abilities and criticizing 

Mother’s inflexibility. However, the theory upon which modification was 

premised is not evident, given the lack of reference to a substantial change in 

any statutory factor or an explicit conclusion that modification is in Child’s best 

3 The GAL’s summation of Father’s psychological evaluation did not describe a particular diagnosis of 

“emotionally healthy.” In 2015, Father was purportedly found to have presented narcissistic traits, but he 

had no diagnosis that would pose a concern with ability to parent. Mother’s 2015 mental health evaluation 

purportedly included the observation that she had been treated for anxiety and depression, with therapy and 

medication.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-DR-712 | December 31, 2020 Page 9 of 9

interests. Additionally, the trial court failed to enter special findings and 

conclusions thereon addressing Mother’s petition to modify joint legal custody 

of Child to Mother’s sole legal custody. 

Conclusion

[14] The trial court did not enter an order in compliance with Indiana Trial Rule 

52(A) adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

[15] Reversed.

Robb, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.