Court Opinion

ID: 9744298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:59:38.920606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.316372
License: Public Domain

*81SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the trial court's denial of Father's request for credit for non-conforming child support payments. However, I do not agree with an implication of the conclusion made by the majority.
I would note that the majority rejects Father's claim, in part, because the provision of child care "does not substantially comply with the Decree requiring Father to pay weekly installments of money to the clerk." Opinion at 80. This conclusion strongly implies that "substantial compliance" may be effected only by payments of money to someone providing goods or services. It also does not acknowledge that in Payson v. Payson, cited by the majority, the court stated that credit might, in equity, be given for substantial compliance "with the spirit of the original support decree." 442 N.E.2d at 1129 (emphasis supplied). The spirit of an order to pay support through the Clerk of Court may be met by "money or its equivalent" and might include the provision of services or tangible goods such as groceries. See Manners v. State, 210 Ind. 648, 5 N.E.2d 300 (Ind.1986). If Father had here produced evidence of the frequency and value of the child care provided, a different result might well be reached in this case. Father did not submit such evidence, however. For this reason I concur.