Court Opinion

ID: 9949771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:04:56.408799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.529865
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Mar 12 2024, 9:19 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

                                            IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                    Kenneth E. Bardonner,
                                       Appellant-Respondent

                                                   v.

                                     Veronika Bardonner,
                                         Appellee-Petitioner

                                           March 12, 2024
                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
                                          23A-DC-1393
                             Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court
                         The Honorable Catherine B. Stafford, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause No.
                                        53C04-1504-DR-192

                               Opinion by Judge Mathias
                          Judges Tavitas and Weissmann concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024                Page 1 of 22
      Mathias, Judge.

[1]   Kenneth Bardonner (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order modifying his

      parenting time with his child, K.V.B. (“Child”). Father presents two issues for

      our review:

               1. Whether the trial court’s order prohibiting Father from taking
               Child to church services or church-related events violates his
               rights under the First Amendment to the United States
               Constitution or is otherwise erroneous.

               2. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it modified his
               parenting time with Child.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   Father and Veronika Bardonner were married, and they had two Children

      together, Child and W.B. (collectively “the Children”), who were born

      February 12, 2011. In April 2015, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of the

      marriage. While that petition was pending, Father underwent a psychological

      evaluation with Dr. Jennifer Spencer, and she filed her report with the trial

      court.

[4]   Dr. Spencer “diagnosed Father as having narcissistic personality and

      exhibitionism disorders. She was concerned about Father’s inappropriate sexual

      boundaries, his attitudes toward women, his self-focus, and his lack of

      empathy.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 72. “Based on these concerns, . . . [the

      trial] Court had encouraged Father to seek counseling to learn how to self-

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024           Page 2 of 22
      monitor his thoughts and behaviors that could impact his children negatively.

      Father did not engage in the recommended counseling.” Id. The trial court

      issued the dissolution decree in September 2016, awarding custody of the

      Children to Mother, with Father exercising parenting time.

[5]   At some point, W.B. died. In June 2017, Father filed a petition to modify

      custody of Child. 1 After a hearing on that petition and other pending motions,

      on May 22, 2018, the trial court issued an order denying Father’s petition to

      modify custody. In particular, the court found as follows:

               6. There has been no change in the conflictual nature of the
               relationship between Mother and Father. The Court’s prior
               orders took this high conflict relationship into account by resting
               sole legal custody with Mother. . . . Father disregards Mother’s
               legal authority to make decisions regarding religion and
               education and attempts to subvert it, going so far as to state that
               it is “his house, his rules.” Father claims that Mother’s actions
               demonstrate a pattern of harmful psychological conduct.
               However, Father has not demonstrated that Mother’s decisions
               relative to legal custody or Father’s parenting time have
               psychologically harmed [Child].

               7. The actions of both parties continue to place [Child] in the
               middle of conflict. Mother must follow the orders of the Court
               and seek input from Father, in writing if desired, on matters
               concerning education, religion, and health care. Father must
               respect the legal authority of Mother, particularly on matters of
               religion, and strictly abide by the parenting time schedule and
               Mother’s decisions.

      1
       Father has not included a copy of that petition in his appendix on appeal. And neither party has stated the
      date of W.B.’s death in their briefs on appeal. For purposes of this appeal, we assume that Father’s 2017
      petition related only to Child.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024                               Page 3 of 22
               ***

               [8c.] Father will not bring [Child] to church services at All Saints
               Church. Father may bring [Child] to social activities only when church
               teachings are not the focus of the activity.

      Id. at 91 (emphasis added).

[6]   Thereafter, Father filed additional petitions to modify custody. In August 2020,

      the trial court issued an order on all pending motions and denied Father’s then-

      pending petition to modify custody. And the court granted Mother’s “request to

      have sole decision-making authority” for Child. Id. at 105. The court noted that

      Father had not complied with court-ordered therapy, having only attended “a

      few sessions” in two years. Id. The court found that “the fewer exchanges that

      the Parties have to negotiate, the better” and modified parenting time “so that

      Father has four consecutive days followed by Mother having seven consecutive

      days.” Id.

[7]   In January 2022, Father filed another petition to modify parenting time. Mother

      filed a motion for rule to show cause why Father should not be found in

      contempt. 2 The trial court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for Child,

      and she filed three reports with the trial court in 2022. On September 16, the

      2
        The trial court found Father in contempt for violating multiple court orders, and he does not appeal either
      those findings or the sanctions imposed.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024                                Page 4 of 22
trial court entered an interim order pending a final hearing on the motions. In

that order, the trial court found and concluded in relevant part as follows:

        8. Father is emotionally harming the child by putting implicit and
        explicit pressure on him to “fix” the parenting time[ schedule.]

        ***

        16. Father shall attend counseling with a licensed therapist
        approved by all parties, including the GAL. He shall propose a
        name to the other parties within one (1) week of this order. If the
        parties cannot agree on a therapist, any party may request an
        expedited hearing. Father’s Counsel shall provide the therapist
        with a copy of the June 1, 2022, and the August 22, 2022, GAL
        reports.

        17. Mother shall continue to participate in counseling as
        described in the June 1, 2022, GAL Report.

        18. The parents shall ensure that the child continues in
        counseling and that he is assured of confidentiality in his
        counseling. . . . The purpose of therapy for the child is not to
        influence or change the court case or the parenting time schedule
        in any way. It is not the child’s responsibility to “fix” the
        parenting time schedule.

        19. Father shall NOT permit the child to attend any All Saints
        Orthodox Church event or any other event where members of
        that church are in attendance.

        ***

        22. It is in the child’s best interests to modify parenting time to
        limit Father’s time with the child so as to minimize the
        emotion[al] harm and to provide a more consistent and
        predictable schedule.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024            Page 5 of 22
               23. Father shall have interim parenting time every other weekend
               and midweek parenting time on alternate Tuesdays and
               Thursdays, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, Parenting Time
               Calendar for September, October, and November 2022, which is
               hereby incorporated into this Order. . . .

      Id. at 128-30.

[8]   A hearing on all pending motions was held beginning in November 2022 and

      concluded in February 2023. In March, the parties disagreed regarding

      parenting time over Child’s spring break, and Father moved the court to allow

      him to take Child on a vacation. The trial court denied Father’s motion, as well

      as his motion to reconsider. 3

[9]   On May 23, the trial court issued its order with the following relevant findings

      and conclusions:

               19. A summary of the GAL’s recommendations is as follows:

                        A. Father’s parenting time to continue per the
                        Interim Order, year[-]round, with no extended
                        summer parenting time, and with holiday parenting
                        time being limited to three overnights per holiday.
                        This reduction of parenting time is based upon the
                        emotional harm [Child] experiences by Father’s
                        implicit and explicit pressure about “fixing” the
                        parenting time schedule and the mature themes to

      3
        Father appeals the court’s denial of that motion to reconsider. But we do not address that issue on appeal.
      We cannot offer Father relief from the court’s denial of visitation for a vacation that was in March 2023, and
      the issue is moot.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024                                Page 6 of 22
                 which Father has been exposing [Child]. Father’s
                 parenting time should remain reduced until these
                 issues are resolved.

                 B. Father to attend counseling with a qualified
                 counselor approved by Mother’s counsel, with the
                 counselor to receive the GAL’s reports and any other
                 relevant information. Father’s counseling should
                 address his contempt for Mother, his beliefs about
                 women, his beliefs about the divorce, . . . compliance
                 with court orders, and self-monitoring of sexual
                 thoughts and behaviors so that he is not impacting
                 [Child] with these beliefs.

                 C. Mother to continue in counseling, addressing her
                 feelings toward Father so that [Child] can feel safe to
                 speak about Father in her presence and feel
                 comfortable voicing his opinions, without recourse.

                 ***

                 E. Both parents to address in their own counseling
                 what they can do to help [Child] understand that he
                 is not responsible for fixing the parenting time
                 schedule or anything else about this proceeding.

                 F. [Child] should not be permitted to attend any
                 function or event of All Saints Orthodox Church,
                 based upon Father’s abuse of the discretion afforded
                 to him in the 2018 order that has required [Child] to
                 lie to protect Father.

        ***

        26. Wishes of the Parents.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 7 of 22
                 A. Mother wishes Father to have parenting time with
                 [Child] that is analogous to the Indiana Parenting
                 Time Guidelines, but which is limited to no more
                 than three consecutive overnights.

                 B. Father wishes the parents to have equal parenting
                 time with [Child]—which would necessitate a
                 modification from Mother’s primary physical custody
                 to joint physical custody.

        27. Wishes of the Child.

                 A. The GAL observed [Child] become visibly
                 uncomfortable when Father made comments about
                 Mother during the home visit.

                 B. Based on the prior in camera interview and related
                 findings of this Court, and the GAL’s reported
                 observations, [Child] continues to feel responsible for
                 the Court’s orders and the amount of parenting time
                 Father receives. [Child] has expressed significant
                 distress to the Court and the GAL about his
                 perceived responsibility.

                 C. [Child] has expressed that he needs to keep his
                 two worlds separate. When with Mother, he does not
                 talk about Father. When with Father, he does not
                 want to talk about Mother. He agrees with whichever
                 parent he is with to avoid confrontation. The GAL
                 observed [Child]’s ability to completely change his
                 demeanor depending on who he was with.

        ***

        28. Interaction and Interrelationship of the Child with Parents,
        Siblings, and Others.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 8 of 22
                 A. [Child] has a close and loving relationship with
                 . . . Mother and Father. However, [Child] is under
                 pressure from Father to act in accordance with
                 Father’s suspicions of Mother to the point that
                 [Child] has an almost obsession with keeping his two
                 selves separate—he has one self at Mother’s and one
                 self at Father’s.

                 B. The GAL expressed serious and repeated concerns
                 that Father was speaking to [Child] about the court
                 proceedings and the GAL reports. The GAL was so
                 concerned about her meeting with [Child] on
                 November 3, 2022, that she stated, “This GAL is
                 very concerned about [Child’s] mental health and
                 wellbeing. It appears that [Child] is being pressured
                 to change his opinion with this GAL. [Child]
                 struggled so much during the November 3 meeting
                 with this GAL. This GAL finds it unlikely that
                 [Child] came to the conclusion on his own that he
                 was being “cowardice” [sic] by not telling this GAL
                 that he wanted more time with Father.”

                 C. Father repeatedly emailed Mother with alleged
                 statistics about the problems faced by children of
                 divorce, memes about things such as, “You can’t fix
                 yourself by breaking someone else,” and assertions
                 such as, “A Child in a female-headed home is 10
                 times more likely to be beaten or murdered. (The
                 Legal Beagle, July 1984, from “The Garbage
                 Generation”).”

                 ***

                 G. Both parties acknowledge that [Child] was
                 baptized in the Episcopalian church as an infant.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024       Page 9 of 22
                 H. A prior order issued May 22, 2018, prohibited
                 Father from taking [Child] to church services at his
                 church, the All Saints Orthodox Church. Father was
                 allowed to take [Child] to church functions that did
                 not involve the church’s teachings.

                 I. Father has consistently disregarded the May 22,
                 2018, order. Father’s own witnesses confirmed that
                 [Child] has regularly attended All Saints Orthodox
                 Church services with Father. [Child] was identified
                 by multiple witnesses of Father’s as a “catechumen,”
                 a person preparing for baptism in the church. One of
                 Father’s witnesses reported that Father and [Child]
                 were on the list read by the priest of people who hope
                 to be baptized in the church and had been on that list
                 for 4 months or more.

                 J. Father’s picture (with [Child] in the photo and
                 identified in the caption) appears in the All Saints
                 directory from 2020.

                 K. Upon discovery of Father’s violations, this Court’s
                 September 16, 2022, Interim Order further restricted
                 Father from permitting [Child] to attend any All
                 Saints Orthodox Church event or any other event
                 where members of the church were in attendance.

                 L. Father’s own witnesses confirmed [Child]’s
                 continued presence at All Saints church after the
                 Interim Order.

                 M. Father believes that since Mother was raised in
                 the Russian Orthodox church that he should be able
                 to provide to [Child] any similar church teachings.

                 N. Mother is opposed to [Child]’s participation with
                 All Saints Orthodox Church for multiple reasons. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024        Page 10 of 22
                 O. Father alleges that this Court’s restrictions
                 regarding All Saints Orthodox Church violate his
                 constitutional rights. . . .

        30. Mental and Physical Health of the Parties and Child.

                 A. The GAL reports as follows:

                 [Child] has deeply internalized Father’s beliefs and
                 that this is creating conflict for [Child]. [Child] is very
                 clearly stuck in the middle of his parents. [Child] has
                 a deeply ingrained desire to avoid conflict. He does
                 this by adopting his mom’s side when he is with his
                 mom and adopting his dad’s side when he is with his
                 dad. This GAL notes that [Child] acted noticeably
                 different during the home visits. Both parents
                 reported that [Child] was not acting significantly
                 different than normal during the home visit.

                 GAL Report, June 1, 2022, page 18.

                 ***

                 W. Mother and Father reside just less than two
                 blocks from each other, in the same neighborhood.

                 X. Father placed multiple “Free [child’s first name]”
                 signs on trees up and down Mother’s street. The signs
                 were printed on white paper in large, bold, capital
                 lettering. The signs were clearly visible from the
                 windows of Mother’s home, within [Child]’s view.
                 The Court notes that this is at least the second time
                 that Father has involved others in the neighborhood
                 in his conflict with Mother, having previously sent
                 emails to neighbors about Mother’s alleged parental
                 alienation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024             Page 11 of 22
                 Y. Mother immediately filed a petition for rule to
                 show cause and a request for emergency orders
                 restraining Father from displaying the signs. On
                 January 20, 2022, this Court issued an order directing
                 Father to remove all signs, including those within his
                 own home, to refrain from posting any additional
                 signs, and to refrain from disparaging Mother to
                 [Child] or in [Child]’s presence.

                 Z. Despite the January 20, 2022, order, at the time of
                 the GAL’s home Visit in April 2022, Father had a
                 “Free [redacted]” sign laying on his stairs, in plain
                 sight. Father admits that he discussed the signs with
                 [Child] the first time he had him after the signs had
                 been posted and that they have talked about them
                 whenever the subject comes up. Father believes
                 [Child] was amused by the signs. Father is incorrect.

                 ***

                 FF. Father defends his practice of sharing
                 information with [Child] about these proceedings and
                 the court system/conflict with Mother, in general.
                 Throughout this proceeding, and before, Father has
                 shared with [Child] content that is objectively
                 inappropriate. This content has included articles
                 about fatherless children, the movie Kramer vs.
                 Kramer, and an episode of Dateline depicting a high
                 conflict custody battle which ended with the mother
                 killing the father. [Child] reported to the GAL that he
                 watched Kramer vs. Kramer; “that it was depressing,
                 and he didn’t like it.”

                 HH. Father demonstrates absolutely no recognition
                 that his exposure of [Child] to this mature, parental
                 conflict-related content is harmful. To the contrary,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 12 of 22
                 Father believes it is appropriate and even beneficial to
                 [Child].

        ***

        38. Religious Activities of the Child

                 A. A child’s legal custodian “may determine the
                 child’s upbringing, including the child’s education,
                 health care, and religious training.” Ind. Code § 31-
                 17-2-17(a)(2).

                 B. No party has petitioned to modify legal or physical
                 custody.

                 C. As [Child]’s legal custodian, Mother has the sole
                 authority to determine his religious training. Mother
                 objects to [Child]’s exposure to All Saints Orthodox
                 Church and to Father’s participation in any religious
                 training for [Child].

                 D. Restriction of Father’s engagement in religious
                 training for [Child] that violates Mother’s legal
                 custody rights is not a violation of Father’s right to
                 his own religious freedom of expression. Father is
                 free to exercise his own religious practices, separately
                 from [Child].

                 ***

                 F. In this case, Father has gone beyond taking [Child]
                 to extracurricular activities at his church. Father’s
                 own witnesses identified [Child] as a “catechumen”
                 —a person preparing for baptism in the church.
                 Father has invaded Mother’s right to determine
                 [Child]’s religious upbringing and has done so despite

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024          Page 13 of 22
                 earlier less restrictive orders, leading to the current
                 order.

        ***

        41. Parenting Time

                 A. Guidelines. This matter DOES involve allegations
                 of family violence, substance abuse, and risk of flight
                 with a child, or other circumstances that the Court
                 reasonably believes would endanger the children’s
                 physical health or safety, or significantly impair the
                 children’s emotional development. Specifically,
                 [Child] is emotionally endangered when Father puts
                 him—personally and publicly—in the middle of
                 Father’s disputes with Mother. Thus, the Indiana
                 Parenting Time Guidelines (“Guidelines”) . . . are
                 NOT in effect in this case except as specifically
                 adopted, below.

                  ***

                 C. Compliance with Prior Orders. Father has not yet
                 complied with the August 2020 Order to complete
                 “at least three months of no less than weekly therapy
                 sessions with an appropriate therapist and . . .
                 received a statement from the therapist that Father
                 has done enough work so that he will not pose a
                 burden on his son with respect to Mother.”

                 D. [Child]’s Best Interests. The Court has carefully
                 considered the statutory best interest factors as well
                 as Father’s constitutional rights to parenting time and
                 [Child]’s strong relationship with Father and must
                 balance those against the emotional harm that Father
                 does to [Child] during parenting time in denigrating
                 Mother, in exposing [Child] to the conflict between
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 14 of 22
                 the parents, and most seriously, in burdening [Child]
                 with the responsibility for the parenting time
                 schedule.

                 E. School Year Schedule. The Court adopts Section
                 II(D)(1) of the Guidelines, for School Year Parenting
                 Time, as follows:

                          1) Every other weekend: Father shall
                          have parenting time every other
                          weekend from after school on Friday to
                          drop off at school on Monday. . . .

                          2) Midweek: Father shall have midweek
                          parenting time with [Child] on the
                          Thursdays prior to Mother’s regular
                          weekends from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, and
                          on Tuesdays following Mother’s regular
                          weekends from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
                          Each week, Father and [Child] will have
                          one midweek parenting time. . . .

                 ***

                 H. All Saints Orthodox Church. Father shall NOT
                 permit the child to attend any All Saints Orthodox
                 Church service, Sunday school, social event, any
                 event located at the church, any event sponsored in
                 whole or in part by All Saints Orthodox Church; nor
                 any private events hosted by a member of All Saints
                 Orthodox Church. Father is not prohibited from
                 taking [Child] to community events where other
                 members of the All Saints Orthodox Church may
                 happen to be in attendance.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024       Page 15 of 22
       Id. at 67-82. This appeal ensued.

       Discussion and Decision
       Standard of Review

[10]   Father appeals the trial court’s order, which includes extensive findings and

       conclusions, following an evidentiary hearing. Our standard of review is well

       settled:

               The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusion of law in
               its order denying modification of custody. Pursuant to Indiana
               Trial Rule 52(A), the reviewing 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.” D.C. v. J.A.C., 977 N.E.2d 951, 953
               (Ind. 2012) (internal quotation and citations omitted). . . .

               Additionally, there is a well-established preference in Indiana
               “for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family
               law matters.” In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind.
               1993). Appellate courts “are in a poor position to look at a cold
               transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who
               saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their
               testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly
               understand the significance of the evidence.” Kirk v. Kirk, 770
               N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Brickley v. Brickley, 247 Ind.
               201, 204, 210 N.E.2d 850, 852 (1965)). “On appeal it is not
               enough that the evidence might support some other conclusion,
               but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by
               appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Id. “Appellate
               judges are not to reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness
               credibility, and the evidence should be viewed most favorably to
               the judgment.” Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011)
               (citations omitted).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024       Page 16 of 22
       Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123-24 (Ind. 2016).

       Issue One: Child’s Religious Training

[11]   Father first contends that the trial court’s order prohibiting Child’s attendance

       at Father’s church or at any church-related activity violates his “Federal and

       State First Amendment constitutional rights.” 4 Appellant’s Br. at 31. In

       particular, he asserts that his “religious freedom and freedom of association is

       infringed when he is forced by the trial court to choose between involving his

       child in his church community or face having his access to his son stripped.” Id.

       We do not agree.

[12]   The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant

       part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

       or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” In support of his argument on appeal,

       Father cites Israel v. Israel, 189 N.E.3d 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. In

       Israel, a father argued that a non-disparagement clause in the trial court’s

       dissolution decree was an unconstitutional prior restraint of his speech. That

       clause prohibited both parents from disparaging the other in front of their child

       or to “anyone.” Id. at 175. On appeal, we held that the prohibition did not

       violate the father’s constitutional rights with respect to statements he made in

       the presence of his child given the “compelling government interest ‘in

       4
        Father makes no separate argument under the Indiana Constitution. Accordingly, we address only his
       argument under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024                          Page 17 of 22
       protecting children from being exposed to disparagement between their

       parents.’” Id. at 180. But we held that the clause went “far beyond furthering

       that compelling interest to the extent it prohibits the parents from ‘making

       disparaging comments’ about the other in the presence of ‘anyone’ even when

       Child is not present.” Id.

[13]   Father’s reliance on Israel is misplaced. In Israel, the First Amendment violation

       was based on a prohibition of the father’s freedom of speech. Here, in contrast,

       the trial court has not restricted Father’s First Amendment freedom of religion

       in any way.

[14]   Moreover, as Father acknowledges, Indiana Code section 31-17-2-17 grants a

       custodial parent the right to “determine [a] child’s upbringing, including the

       child’s education, health care, and religious training.” (Emphasis added.) The

       statute further provides that a court may only limit the custodian’s authority

       upon a determination that, “in the absence of a specific limitation” of that

       authority, the child’s physical health would be endangered or his emotional

       development would be significantly impaired. Id. Here, Father has made no

       such showing, and Mother’s right to determine Child’s religious training is

       therefore without limit, which includes her right to exclude Father’s religious

       preferences.

[15]   Still, in addition to the alleged First Amendment violation, Father contends that

       the court’s order unfairly restricts Child’s extra-curricular activities and that

       Mother should not be “permitted to use religion as a weapon in order to dictate

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 18 of 22
       where Father and [Child] can go and with whom they can associate, when

       there is both no demonstrated interference with Mother’s religious training and

       no demonstrated harm to [Child].” Appellant’s Br. at 29. But Father’s

       arguments amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not

       do on appeal. The bottom line is that Mother has the exclusive authority to dictate

       Child’s religious training, and she has decided that Child shall not participate in

       Father’s church. Mother does not need to explain her reasons or justify her

       decision in any way.

[16]   Finally, we note that it was Father’s own violations of previous court orders,

       which were less restrictive on this issue, that led the trial court to impose the

       current prohibition against taking Child to even private functions hosted by

       members of Father’s church. Given the trial court’s broad discretion in family

       matters, we decline Father’s invitation to find an abuse of that discretion here.

[17]   In sum, the trial court’s order does not violate Father’s First Amendment rights;

       nor is it erroneous for other reasons.

       Issue Two: Parenting Time

[18]   Father next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified

       his parenting time, including a reduction in his summer parenting time to less

       than that recommended under the Parenting Time Guidelines. Father argues

       that the court’s order is “arbitrary, capricious and is not reasonably related to

       any probable harm to [Child].” Appellant’s Br. at 34. We do not agree.

[19]   Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2 provides as follows:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024        Page 19 of 22
               The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting
               time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests
               of the child. However, the court shall not restrict a parent’s
               parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting
               time might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly
               impair the child’s emotional development.

       As this Court has explained,

               Indiana recognizes that the right of a noncustodial parent to visit
               his or her children is a “precious privilege.” Duncan v. Duncan,
               843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Thus,
               although a court may modify a parenting time order when the
               modification would serve the best interests of the child or
               children, a parent’s visitation rights shall not be restricted unless
               the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child’s
               physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional
               development. Id. (citing Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2). Even though the
               statute uses the word “might,” this Court has previously
               interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict
               parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the
               child’s physical health or emotional development. See Stewart v.
               Stewart, 521 N.E.2d 956, 960 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans.
               denied. A party who seeks to restrict a parent’s visitation rights
               bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying such a
               restriction. Farrell v. Littell, 790 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App.
               2003).

       D.B. v. M.B.V., 913 N.E.2d 1271, 1274-75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[20]   Here, the trial court concluded that

               [t]his matter DOES involve allegations of family violence,
               substance abuse, and risk of flight with a child, or other
               circumstances that the Court reasonably believes would endanger

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 20 of 22
               the children’s physical health or safety, or significantly impair the
               children’s emotional development. Specifically, [Child] is
               emotionally endangered when Father puts him—personally and
               publicly—in the middle of Father’s disputes with Mother. Thus,
               the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (“Guidelines”) . . . are
               NOT in effect in this case except as specifically adopted, below.

       Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 81. In support, and as excerpted above, the trial

       court found multiple examples of Father’s conduct that harmed Child, especially

       “in exposing [Child] to the conflict between the parents[.]” Id. And our review

       of the record shows that the court’s assessment is well supported. Thus, the

       court’s restriction of parenting time to less than that recommended under the

       Guidelines was not an abuse of discretion. Father’s contention on appeal

       amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

       Conclusion

[21]   The trial court’s order prohibiting Child’s involvement in certain activities

       related to Father’s church does not violate Father’s First Amendment rights.

       Nor is it otherwise erroneous. Further, the trial court’s order modifying Father’s

       parenting time is supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.

[22]   Affirmed.

       Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024         Page 21 of 22
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Cassandra A. Kruse
Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Kendra G. Gjerdingen
Mallor Grodner LLP
Bloomington, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1393 | March 12, 2024   Page 22 of 22