COX v. CRAWFORD (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After paternity proceedings, it was determined that Austin Cox (“Father”) is the biological father of C.C. (“Child”). At the time paternity was established, Father was incarcerated and the trial court ordered that he would not have any parenting time with Child. Less than a year later, while still incarcerated, Father filed a motion to modify his parenting time with Child, which the trial court denied. Father now appeals and presents several issues for our review that we revise and restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to modify Father's parenting time with Child.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Child was born in March 2021. In October 2023, the trial court determined Father is the father of Child. Father was incarcerated in 2023, and in the order establishing paternity, the trial court ordered that Father “shall have no parenting time at this time.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 12. Father did not file a motion to correct error or otherwise challenge the trial court's order on appeal.

[4] In April 2024, Father filed a motion to modify his parenting time with Child. At the hearing on this motion, Father did not present any evidence in support thereof; in fact, Father stated, “I don't have any evidence of anything changed to present ․,” Tr. Vol. II at 10. Father instead attacked the merits of the original parenting time order. Father was still incarcerated. The trial court denied Father's motion to modify parenting time. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Father's Parenting Time Modification Request

[5] Father challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to modify parenting time. We review parenting time decisions for abuse of discretion. Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (quoting Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). “The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-14-14-2. “We will not substitute our own judgment if any evidence or legitimate inferences support the trial court's judgment.” Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d at 761 (quoting Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1257–58 (Ind. 2008)).

[6] Here, Father did not present any evidence at the modification hearing that modifying his parenting time with Child would serve Child's best interests. Father only addressed alleged errors in the trial court's October 2023 order. And on appeal, Father continues to primarily challenge the trial court's October 2023 order. For example, Father argues that “it was not demonstrated that [his] communication with [Child] might cause endangerment to the child's health or significantly impair the child's emotional development,” Appellant's Br. at 6, and that the fact of his incarceration does “not stand as sufficient evidence” to restrict his parenting time under Indiana Code section 31-17-4-2, id. at 7. Because Father did not appeal the October 2023 order in which the trial court restricted his parenting time and because Father has not sought to file a belated appeal thereof, he has forfeited his right to challenge that order. See In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 970–72 (Ind. 2014) (holding a party that does not file a timely appeal forfeits appellate rights and must show “extraordinarily compelling reasons” to have right to appeal restored).

[7] Because Father did not present any evidence that modifying his parenting time with Child would serve Child's best interests, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Father's modification request. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision.

[8] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.