IN RE: the PATERNITY OF L.B.J.M. (Child) (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Leah Myers (“Mother”) appeals from the denial of the State's motion to correct error regarding the trial court's determination of the date when the child support obligation of Michael Jackson, Jr., (“Father”) began for L.B.J.M.¹ (“Child”). We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to Child on January 17, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Mother filed a petition to establish paternity and provide support for Child. The same day, the State filed a motion to intervene because Mother had an open Title IV-D ² agreement with the State. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on September 18, 2017. Mother and Father appeared, and the trial court ordered Father to undergo DNA testing to determine if he was Child's father.

[3] On September 22, 2017, Mother filed notice with the trial court that she had relocated and was living in Michigan. On November 30, 2017, the trial court held a hearing to establish paternity. Mother did not attend that hearing. The trial court determined, based on DNA testing, that Father was Child's Father. The same day, the trial court entered an order establishing Child's paternity and reserved the issues of physical custody and parenting time. Regarding child support, the trial court noted in its order:

(App. Vol. II at 30.)

[4] On February 28, 2022, the State filed a “Verified Petition to Determine Reserved Issues from Paternity Judgment[.]” (Id. at 33.) On July 29, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the reserved issues. Both parties attended the hearing. On September 27, 2022, the trial court issued its order requiring, in part, that Father pay $155.00 per week in child support. On November 10, 2022, Mother filed pro se a “Child Support Dispute” and a “Request [for] Child Support Modification.” (Id. at 45.) The trial court set a hearing on those filings for March 1, 2023, which the trial court continued to August 15, 2023, on Father's motion.

[5] On August 15, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Mother's filings regarding child support and any arrearage. Both parties appeared at this hearing. On November 16, 2023, the trial court issued a second Judgment of Paternity and Support. In that order, the trial court ordered Father to pay child support of $155.00 per week with an additional $10.00 per week to be paid toward an arrearage, the amount of which the trial court indicated was “Reserved[.]” (Id. at 48) (original formatting omitted).

[6] On January 4, 2024, the trial court entered its order on the child support arrearage. Therein, the trial court found, as is relevant here:

2. A Petition to Establish Paternity was filed on May 1, 2017.

3. A hearing to establish paternity and support was held on November 30, 2017. The Petitioner/Mother failed to appear (Mother states she relocated to Michigan and was attempting to transfer the case to Michigan which did not occur) and the Court issued a default order in her absence.

4. The default order, or Judgement of Paternity and Support entered on November 30, 2017 reserved the issues of custody, parenting time, child support, past due support, medical support and tax handling. All reserved issues, except for arrearage, were addressed in the Judgment of Paternity and Support entered on November 16[sic], 2023.

5. With respect to child support, the November 30, 2017 Judgement of Paternity and Support ordered Father to pay $0.00 per week with the first payment due on December 1, 2017. After ordering $0.00 in weekly child support, the Judgment of Paternity and Support state the following with regard to arrearage, “The order for current support is effective: [T]he date on which the petition was filed, May 1, 2017, subject to review by Circuit Court.”

6. The Judgment of Paternity and Support was not appealed. Moreover, the paternity case remained inactive following the November 30, 2017 Judgment until A Verified Petition to Determine Reserved Issues from Paternity Judgment was filed on February 28, 2022.

7. Petitioner has a duty to diligently prosecute her case, and without an appeal of Judgment of Paternity and Support in a timely fashion, the Court declines any request to retroactively apply the child support amount calculated in 2022 back to the original date of filing since a Judgment was entered reflecting a $0.00 child support order which remained in effect for over four (4) years.

9. The Court finds that the retroactive effective date for Father's arrearage shall be February 28, 2022.

(Id. at 54.) The trial court further concluded Father's child support arrearage to be $4,805.00 and ordered him to pay an extra $10.00 per week toward that arrearage.

[7] On January 30, 2024, the State filed a motion to correct error, arguing the trial court “erroneously interpreted the November 2017 Paternity Judgment to impose a zero-dollar support order” and “committed error by failing to comply with Indiana Code 31-14-11-5[.]” (Id. at 57-8) (formatting in original omitted). On February 16, 2024, the trial court entered an order scheduling a hearing on the motion to correct error for March 21, 2024. Mother did not attend the March 21, 2024, hearing. The trial court issued an order on the State's motion to correct error on April 22, 2024. Therein, the trial court reiterated the case history, specifically that the paternity action was filed on May 1, 2017, and that Mother failed to appear at the hearing to determine paternity and support on November 16, 2017. Additionally, the trial court found:

4. The default order, or Judgment of Paternity and Support entered on November 30, 2017, ordered Father to pay $0.00 per week with the first payment due on a date certain of December 1, 2017. After ordering $0.00 in weekly support, the Judgment of Paternity and Support states the following with regard to arrearage, “The order for current support is effective: [T]he date on which the petition was filed, May 1, 2017, subject to review by Circuit Court.”

5. Therefore, the Judgment of Paternity and Support, entered after Father appeared for the hearing when Mother did not, retroactively applied the $0.00 order back to the date of filing, or May 1, 2017. These are dates and amounts certain, and comply with Indiana Code 31-14-11-5, although it resulted in $0.00. The Court therefore declined to give any meaning or weight to catch all, superfluous language included in the Judgment that “[t]he issue is reserved.”

6. The Judgment of Paternity and Support was not appealed. Moreover the paternity case remained inactive following the November 30, 2017 Judgment until a Verified Petition to Determine Reserved Issues from Paternity Judgment was filed on February 28, 2022. While the Court interpreted the Petition as a request to adjudicate child support fully since Mother failed to attend the hearing to calculate child support, the Court declined to retroactively apply the child support back to the date of filing of the Verified Petition to Establish Paternity was heard. The Verified Petition to Establish Paternity was already adjudicated on November 30, 2017, and resulted in a default judgment in favor of the party who attended the hearing, Father.

7. The State argues that the custodial parents are the custodians of the minor child's child support that the custodial parent cannot simply contract away, but that is not what occurred in this case. In this case, Mother failed to appear for the hearing as a co-petitioner. Due to the fact that Father did appear, the hearing proceeded in Mother's absence that resulted in a favorable judgment to the party who attended the hearing. The rules and responsibilities of a litigant to appear and diligently prosecute the action or suffer the consequences of default, dismissal, or unfavorable rulings, applies in actions of child support.

(Id. at 17-18.) Based thereon, the trial court denied the State's motion to correct error.

Decision and Discussion

[8] As an initial matter, we note Father did not file an appellee's brief. In such a case, we need not develop an argument for him “but instead will reverse the trial court's judgment if [the appellant's] brief presents a case of prima facie error.” In re Adoption of E.B., 163 N.E.3d 931, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Prima facie error means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 17 N.E.3d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Still, we are obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record to determine whether reversal is required.” Id.

[9] Mother appeals following the denial of the State's motion to correct error. Our standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error is well settled.

We generally review a trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. However, where the issues raised in the motion are questions of law, the standard of review is de novo.

Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, 70 N.E.3d 380, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal citations omitted). “Our review of the trial court's ruling on [a] motion to correct error necessarily involves review of the underlying order.” In re Paternity of H.H., 879 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[10] The underlying order here is the order on the child support arrearage. Mother argues the trial court erred as a matter of law when it did not order child support retroactive to May 1, 2017, which is the date Mother filed her paternity action. “Our Supreme Court has long placed a ‘strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations.’ ” Wilson v. Wilson, 222 N.E.3d 1031, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. 1998)). We will reverse a trial court's child support determination only if it is clearly erroneous, meaning the trial court's decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Id. In our review, we will not reweigh the evidence and will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id.

[11] As we recently stated in In re A.G.,

custodial parents who receive child support are treated as trustees of the payments for the use and the benefit of the child. Neither parent has the right to contract away these support benefits. The right to the support lies exclusively with the child. Any agreement purporting to contract away these rights is directly contrary to this State's public policy of protecting the welfare of children, as it narrows the basis for support to one parent.

235 N.E.3d 844, 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-14-11-5, a support order “(1) may include the period dating from the birth of the child; and (2) must include the period dating from the filing of the paternity action.”

[12] Here, the trial court ordered retroactive support starting on February 28, 2022, the date the State filed its petition for determination of child support, which had been reserved in the trial court's November 30, 2017, order. Based on well-established precedent and statutory language, we conclude the trial court had no discretion ³ to order retroactive child support to any date later than May 1, 2017. See Ind. Code § 31-14-11-5. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an order of child support for Child retroactive to May 1, 2017, and recalculation of Father's arrearage. See In re Paternity of P.W.J., 846 N.E.2d 752, 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“Indiana courts will not penalize a child for his or her parent's delay in pursing child support.”), reh'g granted, 850 N.E.2d 1024, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (clarifying evidentiary issue and affirming original holding).

Conclusion

[13] The trial court erred when it ordered Father to pay retroactive child support dating back only to February 28, 2022. Instead, as stated in the plain language of Indiana Code section 31-14-11-5, the trial court was required to grant retroactive child support dating back to May 1, 2017, which was when Mother filed the paternity action. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand for recalculation of Father's arrearage.

[14] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Child's name on the trial court docket is incorrect and does not match Child's name on the appealed order.

2.   Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b, or the federal Social Security Act, Title VI-D “requires states to provide various child-support services, including assistance in establishing paternity, in exchange for receiving federal funds.” Matter of Paternity of M.A.M., 137 N.E.3d 1019, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Title VI-D also requires the state to assist in the “establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support orders[.]” Ind. Code § 31-25-4-13.1(b).

3.   The trial court also ordered the child support retroactive to a day after May 1, 2017 because the “Judgment of Paternity and Support [entered November 30, 2017] was not appealed[.]” (App. Vol. II at 54.) However, as Mother notes, the November 30, 2017, judgment did not address all of the issue of all the parties and thus was not a final order subject to appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 5 (Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over final orders); and see App. R. 2(H)(1) (a judgment is final if “it disposes of all claims as to all parties.”).

May, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.