DE v. MA (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] De.K. (“Father”) and Ma.K. (“Mother”) are the parents of two children. After both parties petitioned to modify parenting time, child support, and other custody-related issues, the trial court issued an order granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody, setting a schedule for the time that the Children would be in Mother's and Father's care, and setting Father's child-support obligation at $85.00 per week. Father challenges the trial court's order on appeal. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and Father are the parents of M.K. and D.K. (collectively, “the Children”). M.K. was born on November 20, 2015, and D.K. was born on December 11, 2018. For some time following the end of their romantic relationship, Mother and Father continued to live in the same residence and share all expenses related to the Children.

[3] Mother filed a petition to modify parenting-time and child-support-related issues on May 1, 2023. In her petition, Mother requested that the trial court grant her primary physical custody of the Children and that the parties share joint legal custody. Father filed a competing petition on November 2, 2023. Father requested that the parties be awarded joint legal and physical custody of the Children.

[4] Following a hearing, the trial court found that

11. The [C]hildren are bonded with both parents and each other. Both parents have provided regular care responsibilities for the [C]hildren. Both parents have transported the [C]hildren to and from school themselves or with the assistance of family and friends.

12. Mother and Father have been operating under an informal agreement wherein Mother has the [C]hildren from Monday evening through Friday morning, essentially 4 overnights per week with no weekend time; and Father has the [C]hildren every Friday through Monday morning, essentially 3 nights per week with no midweek time.

13. Both [C]hildren are well adjusted to their homes, their school and the communities of each of their parents.

14. Neither party expressed concerns regarding the other parent[’]s mental or physical health.

15. There is no evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.

l6. There is no evidence that the children have been cared for by a defacto custodian.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8.

[5] With regard to the parties’ respective incomes, the trial court found that

Father shall be imputed income of $1,000.00 per week. Father receives a salary of $500[.00] per week for a roughly 20 hour work week. Father has the ability to work full time. Father maintains multiple businesses; employments, and self[-]employment work. Father has the capacity to earn $1,000.00 per week gross weekly income. Mother earns $17.50 per hour for a 40 hour work week [which] equates to $700[.00] per week.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8. The trial court set Father's child-support obligation at $85.00 per week and found that, as of October 11, 2024, Father was $6375.00 in arrears of his child-support obligation.

[6] With regard to custody, the trial court found that the parties shall share joint legal and physical custody. As for parenting time, the trial court found

c. That Father shall have every Monday overnight and Tuesday overnight with the [Children].

d. That Mother shall have every Wednesday overnight and Thursday overnight with the [Children].

e. That the parties shall alternate weekends with the [Children] from Friday after school until Monday when the [C]hildren are returned to school.

f. All exchanges shall occur at school during the school year. All exchanges when there is no school in session shall occur at 6:00pm, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

****

h. It is in the best interest of the [C]hildren for both parties to attend the [C]hildren's extracurricular activities, healthcare appointments and school events, as able. Each parent shall be responsible for setting up their own access to school, medical and health providers, coaches, instructors, etc. to lea[r]n about appointments, extracurricular activities and school events. Neither parent shall rely on the ․ other to provide dates, however if one parent schedules an appointment and/or is aware the other parent is not aware of a particular appointment that parent shall provide the information as promptly as possible to the other parent, but no less than seven (7) days notice of all scheduled appointments for the [Children] to provide the other parent an opportunity to attend.

i. All Holidays, Special Days and extended parenting time shall occur pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (IPTG) unless otherwise agreed between the parties. Mother shall be identified as the custodial parent for purposes of the Holiday, Special Day and extended parenting time schedule.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 9–10.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Initially, we note that Father proceeds pro se.

A litigant is not given special consideration by virtue of his pro se status. Rather, it is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.

(internal brackets, citation, and quotation omitted).

These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal. While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant's noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived. We will not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.

(internal citations and quotation omitted).

I. Child Support

[8] In Indiana, a parent has a duty to support his children. See generally, Ind. Child Support Guideline 1 (providing that the obligation to support one's children that is imposed by the Guidelines is consistent with the provisions of Indiana Code Title 31, which places a duty for child support and educational support upon parents based upon the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage or relationship not been dissolved). Father argues that because Mother did not qualify for federal welfare benefits, she cannot, by law, receive child support on behalf of the Children. Father's cited authority, however, does not support this position. provides that, in cases where a parent has sought the assistance of the agency designated to administer Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act, “the court shall order that the payment of the support be made to the agency of state government designated to administer Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act ․ in compliance with the federal regulations established for the administration of Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act.” However, the obligation to support one's children is not dependent upon Title IV-D status or any other welfare-benefit qualification. Rather, the obligation to support one's children “is based on the premise that children should receive the same portion of parental income after a dissolution that they would have received if the family remained intact.”.

II. Custody

[9] We review custody modifications for abuse of discretion, with a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters. In the initial custody determination, both parents are presumed equally entitled to custody, but a petitioner seeking subsequent modification bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing custody should be altered. When reviewing a trial court's decision modifying custody, we may not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and any reasonable inferences therefrom.

(internal citations omitted).

[10] The trial court found that joint legal and physical custody of the Children was in their best interests. Specifically, the trial court noted that the Children “are bonded with both parents and each other. Both parents have provided regular care responsibilities for the [C]hildren. Both parents have transported the [C]hildren to and from school themselves or with the assistance of family and friends.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8. Mother and Father had previously been operating under an informal agreement for joint custody. The Children were “well adjusted to their homes, their school[,] and the communities of each of their parents.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8. Father sought joint legal and physical custody in this matter, and the trial court ordered joint legal and physical custody as requested by Father. From what we can gather, Father now, for the first time on appeal, seeks sole custody of the Children. Father has waived this issue by failing to raise it before the trial court. (“an issue raised by an appellant for the first time on appeal is waived”), trans. denied.

III. Alleged Violation of Father's Civil Rights

[11] To the extent that Father argues that the trial court's order violates his civil rights, Father fails to provide a cogent argument or cite to any facts or part of the record that supports his claim. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that an appellate argument contain “the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.” “Failure to present a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue on appeal.”. Father has waived his civil-rights argument.

[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.