Court Opinion

ID: 9730287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:07:11.541185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.426673
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the majority that the trial court's 1986 modification warranted pro*1265spective application. I also agree that James is entitled to credit for his payments to his daughter, but only because the December 27, 1983 decree did not specify to whom the support would be paid. Paying support to a child is not necessarily supporting the child as many children would not apply the support to food and shelter. See Whitman v. Whitman (1980), Ind. App., 405 N.E.2d 608. I believe a better policy would be for the trial court to designate the recipient in its decree, which would prevent any uncertainty when determining the trial court's original intent.