FORTUNE AURI v. BROWN (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Sara Fortune-Auri (“Mother”), pro se, appeals following the trial court's order finding her in contempt. Mother presents three issues for our review, which we consolidate, revise, and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for:

1. failing to arrange for A.B. and S.B. (collectively, “Children”) to travel by airplane from Texas to Indiana so that Anthony Brown (“Father”) could exercise his parenting time; and

2. disobeying the trial court's order requiring Mother to update Father weekly on Children's well-being and to ensure he had three video-calls per week with Children.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Children were born as twins to Mother and Father in 2019. On May 8, 2019, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Father, and the trial court dissolved the marriage in 2020. The court awarded Mother primary physical custody and sole legal custody of Children. At the time of the dissolution of marriage, Mother worked as a nurse in Indianapolis, and Father worked in retail in Indianapolis. Mother lost her job on March 25, 2023, and after searching unsuccessfully for a job in Indiana, Mother found employment in Dallas, Texas. Mother filed a notice of her intent to relocate to Texas, and Father objected to Mother's notice.

[3] On January 30, 2024, the trial court issued an order granting Mother permission to relocate with Children. The trial court noted Children were four years old at the time of the order and observed that with respect to transporting Children from Dallas to Indianapolis, “[a]ir travel would almost be a necessity.” (App. Vol. 2 at 47.) The order directed the parents “to communicate solely through Our Family Wizard.” (Id. at 48.) It also provided that “[a]ny parent with the children in their care for a period of more than five continuous days shall provide information to the other on at least a weekly basis[.]” (Id.) The order provided that the updates should convey information regarding Children's health, medical appointments, school, extracurriculars, friendships, and “anything else of note for the children.” (Id.) Regarding Father's parenting time, the order stated:

Father shall have one weekend per month with the children during the school year, from the day the children are done with school, returning the evening prior to children beginning school again. Father's weekend shall always occur during any three day weekend on the children's school calendar if there is such a weekend [in a] month.

(Id.) The order stated: “Mother shall be solely responsible for all travel arrangements and costs for the children's flights. Father is solely responsible for picking up children from the airport and returning them to the airport.” (Id. at 49.) The order further decreed: “Mother shall provide flight information to Father at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the start of each of Father's parenting time.” (Id.) The trial court also ordered that “Father shall have video calls with the children at least three times per week ․ Any call missed by Mother shall be made up within twenty-four hours.” (Id.)

[4] On August 1, 2024, Father filed his third ¹ verified petition for contempt and rule to show cause. Father asserted Mother was not complying with the trial court's order that he have three video calls per week with Children. He alleged “[t]hat out of 40 phone calls that Father was to receive, he was only provided the opportunity to speak with children 21 times and only 7 of those calls were made up.” (Id. at 52.) Father also accused Mother of going over 14 weeks without giving him a weekly update regarding Children. In addition, Father asserted Mother failed to cooperate with him in arranging Children's visits to Indiana so that he could exercise parenting time. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on August 7, 2024, and took the petition under advisement.

[5] Father filed his fourth verified petition for contempt and rule to show cause on September 26, 2024. The petition alleged that “[d]espite Mother's testimony on August 7, 2024 that the calls happen and if they miss, they call Father back, Mother has missed fourteen out of eighteen scheduled calls and has only made up five just since the court date.” (Id. at 56.) The petition further alleged that only two of the calls Father had with Children lasted longer than two minutes and that Mother continued to not give Father consistent weekly updates regarding Children. Father also accused Mother of denying him access to the Children's school information. In addition, Father asserted:

13. That Mother continues to give Father only last-minute information which makes arranging travel and parenting time extremely difficult. Mother is already past the ordered time to provide Father with the travel information for October and she has failed to do so.

14. That Mother will force the children to drive back and forth the 18-hour drive rather than allow Father to purchase plane tickets for the children which interferes with the amount of parenting time he is able to have.

15. That Father believes that Mother is purposefully not allowing the children to fly for visitation to lessen Father's time with the children.

(Id. at 56-57.) On December 3, 2024, Father filed a fifth verified petition for contempt alleging Mother continued to limit his calls with Children and failed to give him weekly updates. He indicated that he had “serious concerns for the children's well-being and educational needs” because of Children's absences from school. (Id. at 61.) Father also asserted Mother continued to drive Children from Texas to Indiana rather than sending them by plane. Father claimed that “Mother is purposefully not allowing the children to fly for visitation to lessen Father's time with the children.” (Id. at 62.)

[6] The trial court held a hearing on Father's subsequent verified petitions for contempt on December 6, 2024. At the hearing, Mother acknowledged that she did not arrange for Father to have all the video calls with Children that he was entitled to under the court order. She blamed some of the missed phone calls on Children being “really rebellious.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 51.) Mother also testified that she was transporting Children from Texas to Indiana by car because it was cheaper than paying to send Children by plane. Mother acknowledged that transporting Children by car resulted in Father not being able to exercise some of his assigned parenting time and in Children occasionally being absent from school. Father testified that his calls with Children happen “twice a week if I'm lucky” and almost never on time. (Id. at 55.) Father estimated that he lost approximately seven days of parenting time because of Mother driving Children to Indiana rather than flying them, and he stated that Mother never took him up on his offer to cover some of the cost of plane tickets. Father also explained that Mother had not informed him that Children were staying overnight with a babysitter when Mother had to work overnight shifts or that Mother's second husband was no longer staying overnight with Children because of a pending Texas Child Protective Services investigation.

[7] On February 12, 2025, the trial court issued a written order that found Mother in contempt. The trial court found “Mother has consistently failed to provide Father with timely notice regarding his parenting time” and “Mother knowingly and willfully violated the Court's Order by failing to take the anticipated measures to ensure Father's parenting time.” (App. Vol. 2 at 69.) The trial court also found “Mother failed to arrange for Father to exercise his court-ordered video calls with the children. When Father did receive calls, they were not substantive and ended within minutes.” (Id. at 68.) In addition, the trial court found Mother in contempt for not giving Father weekly updates on Children's well-being. As a sanction, the trial court ordered Mother to pay the attorney fees Father incurred in bringing the third, fourth, and fifth petitions for contempt.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Initially, we note Mother proceeds pro se on appeal. We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as trained attorneys and afford them no inherent leniency because of their self-represented status. Zavodinik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). A litigant's choice to proceed pro se “does not relieve them of their duty to comply with all the rules of appellate procedure,” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g denied, “and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Id. at 984. “One of the risks that a [litigant] takes when he decides to proceed pro se is that he will not know how to accomplish all of the things that an attorney would know how to accomplish.” Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. We will not become an “advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[9] In addition, Father elected not to file an appellee's brief. “When the appellee fails to file a brief on appeal, we may reverse the trial court's decision if the appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error. In this context, prima facie error is defined as at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Walking With Jesus Ministries v. Alexander, 240 N.E.3d 183, 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Still, we are obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record in order to determine whether reversal is required.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 17 N.E.3d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[10] We review a trial court's judgment holding a party in contempt for an abuse of discretion. Finnegan v. State, 240 N.E.3d 1265, 1269 (Ind. 2024), reh'g denied. “We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, and we will affirm the trial court's contempt finding unless review of the record leaves us with a firm and definite belief that a mistake has been made.” In re G.B.H., 945 N.E.2d 753, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). We “will reverse a finding of contempt only if there is no evidence or inferences drawn therefrom that support it.” Matter of N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

1. Failure to Arrange Plane Travel

[11] Mother asserts the order granting Mother permission to relocate was ambiguous regarding Children's method of travel. However, the order described traveling by plane to “almost be a necessity” given the long distance between Dallas and Indianapolis. (App. Vol. 2 at 47.) It also assigned responsibility to Mother for arranging and paying for Children's travel and communicating “flight information to Father at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the start of each of Father's parenting time.” (Id. at 49.) The order provided Father's parenting time was to begin when Children were done with school on the day preceding each weekend they were to spend with Father. The only way Father could exercise parenting time the evening after a school day was if Children flew. The order was not ambiguous and clearly required air travel.

[12] Mother contends “she was under medical restrictions due to a high risk pregnancy” and “[d]riving the children was the only practical and feasible way to ensure visitation while protecting her health.” (Appellant's Br. at 8.) Mother directs us to three pages of the transcript in support of this contention, but none of these pages discuss any medical restriction that prevented Mother from air travel. Moreover, even if Mother could not travel by plane, she did not explain why Children could not fly as unaccompanied minors. The Children missed parenting time with Father when Mother chose to drive Children to Indianapolis rather than send them by plane. In addition, while Father offered to cover some of the travel costs associated with sending Children by plane, Mother did not accept his offer. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for denying Father parenting time. See, e.g., B.L. v. J.S., 59 N.E.3d 253, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Father in contempt for violating parenting time order), trans. denied.

2. Missed Video Calls and Updates

[13] With respect to the trial court's contempt findings related to missed video phone calls and updates, Mother asserts “[t]he evidence shows imperfect compliance and misunderstandings, not intentional obstruction.” (Appellant's Br. at 9.) However, Mother acknowledges the Children missed video calls with Father. The relocation order required the parties to communicate through Our Family Wizard, and if one parent had Children for a period of five continuous days, that parent was to provide the other parent with an update regarding Children's well-being. The order also listed the information that should be conveyed in each update. Mother's Our Family Wizard messages demonstrate she routinely failed to give Father the weekly updates required by the order. While Mother argues these failures were unintentional, her argument is a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See, e.g., Richardson v. Richardson, 34 N.E.3d 696, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (holding we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal and affirming the trial court's contempt order after it found wife's explanations and excuses for not complying with trial court's parenting time order were not credible). Thus, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for not ensuring Father had three video calls a week with Children and for not updating Father regarding Children's well-being.

Conclusion

[14] The trial court's relocation order was unambiguous that Children were expected to travel from Texas to Indiana by plane to have parenting time with Father, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for failing to arrange such travel. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for failing to ensure that mandated video calls between Children and Father occurred and that Father received weekly updates regarding Children's well-being. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's rulings on the first two of Father's petitions are not part of this appeal.

May, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.