IN RE: The Matter of the Paternity of A.L. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] John Lilly (“Father”) and Heather Williamson (“Mother”) are the parents of A.L. (“Child”), born in 2019. In June of 2023, Mother petitioned to have Father's paternity established and requested that he be required to fulfill his legal obligations as a parent. In June of 2024, the juvenile court issued its order, in which it established Father's paternity and ruled on matters of physical custody, parenting time, and child support. Mother moved to correct error, seeking clarification of the juvenile court's order, which motion the juvenile court granted. Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in calculating child support and in ruling on Mother's motion to correct error before allowing him to respond to it. We reject both of Father's arguments while recognizing that the juvenile court used the parties’ income data from 2022 to calculate Father's support obligation when it had access to 2023 income data. Use of the more recent income data, however, would change Father's obligation by less than four dollars per week, which is an amount we consider to be de minimis so as to not warrant remand for further proceedings, which, in any event, is relief Mother has not requested. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 16, 2023, Mother petitioned to have Father's paternity established as to Child, born on December 18, 2019. There is no indication that Father has ever contested paternity of Child. On June 11, 2024, the juvenile court conducted a hearing. Guardian ad litem Lindsay Ruby (“GAL Ruby”) testified and submitted a report, in which she recommended that Mother maintain physical custody of Child, with Father exercising parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.¹

[3] On the matter of child support, Mother submitted two proposed child support obligation worksheets (“CSOWs”) at the hearing, both based on the parties’ 2022 incomes. The first proposed CSOW (originally prepared in October of 2023 and admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 8) indicated a recommended child-support obligation for Father of $226.95 per week. Mother's second proposed CSOW (which was filed during the hearing but was not admitted into evidence) indicated a child-support obligation of $257.45 per week. The second proposed CSOW was based on the same weekly incomes for Mother and Father as the first (i.e., $1266.00 and $1933.00, respectively) but differed in that it gave Mother a credit of $47.45 for support of a previously-born child and gave Father a parenting-time credit of $57.18 (based on ninety-eight overnights). At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court indicated that it would issue an order after the parties had provided it with W-2s for 2023.

[4] On June 17, 2024, Father submitted his W-2 for 2023, which indicated social-security wages of $113,560.34. On June 24, 2024, the juvenile court entered its order, in which it “adopt[ed] the recommendations of” GAL Ruby regarding physical custody and visitation and concluded that Father's income information for 2023 “merely confirm[ed] that Petitioner's Exhibit 8 is essentially correct, which the Court therefore also adopt[ed].” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 20.

[5] On June 27, 2024, Mother submitted a third CSOW and her 2023 W-2. The third CSOW updated her and Father's incomes to reflect their 2023 W-2s and indicated a weekly support obligation for Father of $261.04. On July 23, 2024, Mother moved to correct error, seeking clarification on custody and parenting time, requesting that the juvenile court order child support of $261.00 per week, and requesting that the support order be made retroactive to June 16, 2023, the date Mother filed the paternity action. On August 1, 2024, or nine days later, the juvenile court issued its order on Mother's motion to correct error, in which it reiterated its adoption of GAL Ruby's recommendations regarding physical custody and visitation and ordered that Father pay weekly child support of $257.45 (the amount indicated in Mother's second proposed CSOW), retroactive to June 16, 2023.

Discussion and Decision

I. Amount of Child Support

[6] Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in setting his child-support obligation at $257.45 per week, which, as mentioned, was based on Mother's second proposed CSOW.

On review, “[a] trial court's calculation of child support is presumptively valid.” Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008) (citing Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939, 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). “[R]eversal of a trial court's child support order deviating from the appropriate guideline amount is merited only where the trial court's determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Kinsey v. Kinsey, 640 N.E.2d 42, 43 (Ind. 1994) (citing Humphrey v. Woods, 583 N.E.2d 133, 134 (Ind. 1991)). Upon the review of a modification order, “only evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment are considered.” Kinsey, 640 N.E.2d at 44 (string citation omitted). The order will only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Id.

Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 738 (Ind. 2015). “In any proceeding for the award of child support, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” Ind. Child Support Rule 2. The Child Support Guidelines indicate the use of gross (not net) income when calculating child support. See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A)(1) (indicating the use of “weekly gross income” in calculating child support).

[7] Father notes that Mother's second proposed CSOW (on which the juvenile court's support order was based) listed her income as $1266.00 per week, while she testified at the hearing that her weekly gross income was $1403.00.² Father claims that the lower number represents Mother's net income and argues that the juvenile court should have used the higher figure instead when calculating his child-support obligation, which would, of course, have resulted in a lower obligation, all other things being equal.

[8] The two amounts, however, are not Mother's net and gross incomes from the same period as Father claims—they are both her gross weekly incomes, just from different years: $1266.00 in 2022 and $1403.00 in 2023. Father is essentially asking us to cherry-pick data from different years—using Mother's higher income from one year and Father's lower income from another—to generate an artificially-reduced child-support obligation. Because Father cites to no authority for the proposition that it would ever be appropriate to use one party's 2022 income in a calculation where all other data are from 2023, we decline his invitation.³

II. Response to Mother's Motion to Correct Error

[9] Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting Mother's motion to correct error before the time for him to file his response had run.⁴ Indiana Trial Rule 59(E) provides, in part, that “[f]ollowing the filing of a motion to correct error, a party who opposes the motion may file a statement in opposition to the motion to correct error not later than fifteen [15] days after service of the motion.” (Second set of brackets in original). Indiana Trial Rule 61, however, provides as follows:

No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief under a motion to correct errors or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order or for reversal on appeal, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

[10] With this in mind, even if we assume, arguendo, that the juvenile court abused its discretion in issuing its order before Father had a chance to respond, Father has failed to establish how his substantial rights were affected. Father argues that the juvenile court's speedy ruling denied him the chance to submit his own proposed CSOW, which he contends would have reflected (1) Mother's actual income of $1403.00 per week and (2) the appropriate credits for overnights. As for Father's first contention, we have already rejected his argument that the juvenile court used incorrect income figures in calculating Father's support obligations. As for Father's second contention, it could only be based on a claim that he is somehow entitled to be credited with more overnights than the ninety-eight for which he was credited in Mother's second proposed CSOW. Father, however, neither claims that he is exercising more overnight visitation than the amount ordered by the juvenile court nor explains (much less establishes) just how much more credit would be appropriate.⁵ In light of Father's failure to establish that his substantial rights were affected by the juvenile court's speedy ruling on Mother's motion to correct error, any error it might have committed in so doing can only be considered harmless. See Ind. Trial Rule 61.

[11] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It seems to be understood by all that this results in ninety-eight overnights per year for Child with Father. All of Mother's relevant filings with the juvenile court account for ninety-eight overnights per year, and while Father argued below that he should have more, he has never disputed that application of the Parenting Time Guidelines results in ninety-eight overnights.

2.   Mother's third proposed CSOW lists her 2023 weekly income as $1405.00, a slight discrepancy neither party explains.

3.   Father does not actually argue that the juvenile court abused its discretion in using Mother's second proposed CSOW instead of her third, just that her greater income from the third should be plugged into the second. Moreover, Mother does not argue that the juvenile court abused its discretion in using income data from 2022 when data from 2023 were available, even though use of the 2023 data would increase Father's obligation to $261.04 per week, as opposed to $257.45. This difference, of less than four dollars per week, is insufficient to warrant remand for further proceedings, especially when Mother has not requested it.

4.   Father also baldly contends that the juvenile court denied him due process of law. Because Father cites to no authority for this proposition, he has failed to support it with a cogent argument, and we need not address it further. Generally, “[a] party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.” Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied; see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring that contentions in an appellant's brief be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal).

5.   The only way Father would be entitled to get more credit for overnight visitation would be to exercise more overnight visitation. Father, however, does not challenge the juvenile court's visitation order limiting him to ninety-eight overnights per year.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Kenworthy concur