IN RE: the Marriage of Seth Allen Stanley (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Since the dissolution of their marriage in 2016, Seth Allen Stanley (“Father”) and Amber Nicole Stanley (“Mother”) have litigated various parenting time, child support, and related matters. In this most recent appeal, Father appeals the dissolution court's modification of legal custody over one of the parties’ minor children as well as the court's order finding Father in indirect contempt. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Father raises the following three issues for our review:

1. Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue.

2. Whether the dissolution court abused its discretion when it modified legal custody over one of the minor children.

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it held him in contempt.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Father and Mother were married, and two children were born of the marriage: M.S., born January 28, 2008, and H.S., born July 9, 2012 (collectively, “the Children”). The parties’ marriage was dissolved on May 19, 2016, and the dissolution court ordered that the parties would share joint legal custody and awarded Father primary physical custody, with Mother to have parenting time. At some point, Father moved to Ohio, and Mother remained in Evansville. On May 22, 2019, the court issued an order giving Mother parenting time in Evansville for spring break, over the summer from June 1 to July 31, the Thanksgiving holiday, and half of Christmas break every year. Mother's husband (“Stepfather”) was to exercise Mother's parenting time while Mother was deployed to Kuwait.

[4] In March 2021, Father asked Mother to delay Stepfather's spring break visitation so that the Children could attend sports practices and appointments. Then, when Mother returned, Mother asked Father for a weekend with the Children, and it took Father one month to set up that weekend. Beginning in 2022, M.S. participated in extracurricular activities that “seemed to be taking place during Mother's parenting time” and which led to “problems” with Mother's parenting time with M.S. Tr. Vol. 2 at 67-68. Further, in May 2023, Father informed Mother that M.S. was enrolled in various activities and that she “may only be available for parenting time with Mother for the first 2 weekends in June and July 2023.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 179.

[5] As a result of the missed parenting time, on July 10, the trial court found Father in contempt for violating the parenting time order. The court imposed a fine on Father in the amount of $2,000.00 but “suspended” the fine “on the condition that Father complies with the existing parenting time Orders.” Id. at 183. The court further noted that M.S. “is suffering as a result of Father's continued interference with Mother's parenting time” and that Father “is pitting [M.S.’s] summer activities against Mother's [c]ourt [o]rdered summer parenting time.” Id. at 181.

[6] On September 19, 2023, Mother filed a petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support. Mother cited “Father's continuous refusal to allow [her] parenting time to occur as ordered by the Court” as a “substantial change” requiring a change in custody. Appellee's App. Vol. 2. at 3-4.

[7] In January and February 2024, Mother traveled to Ohio to visit the Children. M.S. refused to visit with Mother while she was there. During spring break 2024, M.S. spent several days in Indiana at her paternal grandmother's house but “did not see her mom during the visit.” Ex. Vol. 9 at 28. Then, in the summer of 2024, M.S. spent only one week in Evansville, during which she stayed with Father's mother. M.S. had two one-hour visits with Mother while there.

[8] On July 9, Mother filed an emergency information for indirect contempt. Mother alleged that she had been denied parenting time with M.S. and that she was entitled to make up time that she had missed with H.S. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”), who submitted her report on October 25.

[9] The court scheduled a fact-finding hearing on Mother's motions to begin on November 7. Prior to that hearing, Father filed a motion to strike the GAL and her report and for a continuance. Father's counsel then made arrangements to visit the GAL's office on November 2 to obtain her file. The GAL provided two flash drives to the attorney. However, the GAL did not release M.S.’s counseling records. On November 4, Father requested a complete copy of the GAL's records. In response, the GAL produced numerous messages between Father and Mother that they had sent through a messaging system called Our Family Wizard.

[10] At a hearing on November 6, Father argued that the GAL's report should be struck and a continuance granted because of a potential conflict of interest between the GAL and the court and because of the GAL's late disclosure of her full report. The trial court denied Father's motions but ordered the GAL to release all counseling records to the attorneys. The GAL sent the records the same day.

[11] During the fact-finding hearing, the GAL testified that Father will not “punish” M.S. for her refusal to participate in parenting time with Mother. Tr. Vol. 2 at 92. The GAL also testified that M.S. will not visit with Mother unless it is on her terms and that Father “has added to this situation” and “engaged in parental interference” by “empower[ing]” M.S. “to believe that she should have some say in what is happening.” Id. at 104-05.

[12] Regarding H.S., the GAL testified that she has a “strong concern” that the same problems that exist between Mother and M.S. could develop between Mother and H.S because Father “doesn't seem to have the insight or doesn't seem to care” that he caused “damage” to Mother's relationship with M.S. Id. at 107. The GAL also testified that she was “starting to see some indicators that some of these things could be happening with” H.S. Id. at 129. She further testified that Father signing H.S. up for activities without discussing them first with Mother is an “early indicator[ ]” that Father could interfere with Mother's parenting time with H.S. and cause a breakdown of their relationship, as it did with Mother's relationship with M.S. Id. at 168. And the GAL testified that Mother is now getting “[d]elayed or no response from” H.S. when she attempts to contact him via phone. Id. at 186.

[13] Similarly, Mother testified that Father enrolled the Children in sports that interfere with her parenting time and that she is “worried” that H.S. will start to view “activities” as a priority “with no compliance” with the parenting time order. Id. at 216. Mother also testified that Father has “curtailed” her phone calls with H.S. Id. at 228.

[14] On May 9, 2025, the court issued extensive findings of fact and conclusions thereon. In relevant part, the court found and concluded as follows:

18. Despite this Court's July 10, 2023 Court Order finding Father in contempt for violating Mother's Court Ordered parenting time and imposing a $2,000.00 fine on Father that was avoidable by compliance with the parenting time Orders, the evidence was clear and convincing that Father has continued to knowingly and intentionally violate Mother's Court Ordered parenting time with [M.S.].

* * *

20. During the Summer of 2024, [M.S.] only spent 1 week in the Evansville area, staying at the residence of the Paternal Grandmother Karie Goss in Newburgh. Mother was only allowed 2 visits during that week[.] Despite the unambiguous language that Mother was to have 2 continuous months of extended summer parenting time with [M.S.], Father manipulated events so that Mother only had 2 hours with [M.S.], all while the Paternal Grandmother was present.

* * *

25. There was no evidence that the Mother has had any parenting time with [M.S.] since the 2 hours of visits in the summer of 2024, with the exception of a September 7, 2024 family appointment in Evansville with the GAL, Father, Mother, [M.S.] and [H.S.]. [M.S.] refused to see Mother outside of the family appointment. At the end of the session with the GAL, [M.S.] “immediately left the office and Mother and son hugged.”

26. To summarize hours of testimony regarding Father and [M.S.], Father has doubled down on [M.S.] deciding whether to exercise parenting time with Mother. The GAL reviewed 990 Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) messages between the parties, with [M.S.] being supported by Father “in her decision to prioritize activities and peer relationships over her parenting time with mother.” The Father “suggested the mother and daughter communicate on working out modifications to the parenting time schedule at times. This placement of the child in the middle of parenting decisions contributed to the breakdown in the mother and daughter[’s] relationship.”

* * *

28. Father repeatedly claimed that he cannot “force” [M.S.] to have parenting time with Mother. [M.S.’s] Step-Mother testified Father packs [M.S.’s] bags, “but we can't physically get her into Mother's car.” Father provided non-credible testimony on November 8, 2024 that he told [M.S.] that he could go to jail or lose custody of her and [H.S.] if she didn't see her Mother as Ordered by the Court. Father's testimony was non-credible for reasons including that Father does not in any way discipline or threaten to discipline [M.S.] for not complying with the Court Ordered parenting time.

29. [M.S.] testified by videoconference on November 8, 2024 that Father does not make her comply with the Court Orders. There were no consequences by Father when she refused to go with Mother visiting in Toledo for the MLK weekend. Father never threatened to take her car or phone away for not complying with the Court Orders. [M.S.] also testified that [H.S.] watches her not go on parenting time. The Court finds this is hurtful and damaging to [H.S.]

* * *

31. The GAL found Father has “high expectations related to chores, grades, and participation in sports to which the daughter meets his expectations. The area of parenting time is the only expectation where he indicates he does not have any power with the daughter.” When [M.S.] does not want to visit Mother, Father “does not take a position of parental authority in her attending the parenting time.”

* * *

42. The groundwork for the non-compliance with Mother's 2024 summer parenting began in earnest with the April 26, 2024 counseling session. [M.S.] reported no interactions with mom since Spring break. [M.S.] expressed continued frustration about going to Indiana this summer. [M.S.] wanted to setup a “plan” in a conversation with her Mother, with the counselor and Father present. Counselor [Kate] Bailin noted “Client reports excitement about summer, driving and working.” At this point, it is clear to the Court that Father and [M.S.] already decided that [M.S.] would be spending all or the vast majority of June 1st to July 31st in Ohio․

* * *

47. At the July 19, 2024 counseling session (which was during the time [M.S.] should have been with her Mother from June 1st to July 31st), [M.S.] reports staying busy with work, sports and social outings. She reports her visit to Indiana was “ok” and she saw her mom on 2 occasions. [M.S.] reported the visits with her mom felt “awkward.” The Court notes that “awkward” is the exact same word Paternal Grandmother used in her November 8, 2024 testimony to describe [M.S.’s] 2 visits over the week of summer break.

* * *

51. The evidence is clear and convincing that since July 10, 2023 Father knowingly and intentionally continued to engage in a pattern of parental alienation to wrongfully deny Mother's Court Ordered parenting time with [M.S.]. Father's attempt to establish a defense of reliance on recommendations by [M.S.’s] counselor/therapist in Ohio is simply a new tactic in this disturbing and continuing pattern of wrongful conduct.

* * *

53. As part of Father's pattern of denying Mother her Court Ordered parenting time with [M.S.], Father has wrongfully but intentionally empowered [M.S.] to prioritize her sports, social outings and part-time employment in Ohio, over what should have been a good, positive and loving relationship with her Mother. Here, the Mother is a good and fit parent that simply wanted to exercise and enjoy her Court Ordered parenting time in Indiana with both [M.S.] and [H.S.]. The Court fully agrees with the GAL's finding that Father's interference has “greatly impacted the breakdown in the relationship with the mother and daughter. However, taking the daughter[’s] age into account, a change in custody for the daughter does not appear in the child's best interest.”

54. While the GAL recommended reunification therapy for [M.S.] and Mother with a skilled and experienced therapist who understands high conflict divorce, this Court finds the damage caused by Father to [M.S.’s] relationship with her Mother is so severe that it will only be repairable when [M.S] on her own realizes that she was manipulated by Father into wrongfully rejecting her Mother.

55. [M.S.] testified via videoconference from Father's home on November 8, 2024. The Court was not surprised when [M.S.] testified that she will not go on parenting time with her Mother “no matter what the Judge Orders.”

56. With Father's continued support and encouragement, [M.S.] has wrongfully repudiated her parental relationship with her Mother.

57. On November 7, 2024 the GAL provided credible and compelling testimony that Father does not have the insight, or does not care, about the damage to Mother's parental relationship with [M.S.] The GAL found Father has shown “no remorse” for the damage to that relationship.

58. Father's manipulation of counselor Bailin after intentionally not providing her the controlling July 10, 2023 Court Order, dramatically damaged the parent-child relationship between Mother and [M.S.]. The Court agrees with the GAL and now Orders that this counseling/therapy shall be terminated immediately․

* * *

70. Since the July 10, 2023 Court Order, [H.S.] has witnessed both [M.S.’s] refusal to participate in Mother's Court Ordered parenting time and [M.S.’s] refusal to interact with the Mother.

* * *

74. With regard to the wishes of the child, [H.S.] told the GAL that “he would like to see his mother more and would be ok with wherever he lived.” Given the pressure that Father has put on both [M.S.] and [H.S.], the Court places significant emphasis on [H.S.’s] statement showing his willingness to live with his Mother. Father admitted that [H.S.] “has identified a wish to see his mother more.” Mother believes that [H.S.] would want to live in Evansville. [H.S.] said he likes visiting Indiana and seeing his Mother and Step-Father Adam. [H.S.] testified, via video conference from Father's home on November 8, 2024, that he really didn't want to change his life in Toledo. The Court gave this testimony little weight given the obvious pressure that [H.S.] was under.

* * *

79. Father, in a change of circumstances for [H.S.], recently switched [H.S.’s] parochial school in Toledo. [H.S.] informed his Mother that Father is signing him up for crew and astrology club. However, Father had not discussed these activities with Mother. Father told Mother that [H.S.’s] hockey was only a winter sport, but Father now said there is a spring hockey league. In March 2023, Father told Mother that [H.S.’s] spring hockey practices could conflict with her Spring Break parenting time. Father's new activities for [H.S.] in Ohio now provide Father with opportunities to prioritize [H.S.’s] practices, games, fund-raisers, meetings and peer relationships over Mother's Court Ordered parenting time. This is exactly how it started with [M.S.]

80. With regard to the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, the evidence is clear and convincing that Father engaged in parental alienation of Mother's relationship with [M.S.]. Father knowingly and intentionally violated Mother's Court Ordered parenting time. This demonstrates that Father lacks the mental ability to ensure history does not repeat itself with [H.S.]. This Court must act in the best interests of [H.S.] and not wait until there is another destruction of a parental relationship. All evidence before the Court shows that Mother is a good and fit parent. This is repeated throughout the GAL Report․

Id. at 147-66 (citations omitted).

[15] Accordingly, the court granted Mother primary physical custody of H.S., with Father exercising parenting time. The court then found Father in contempt and ordered him to pay the $2,000.00 fine that was previously imposed in the July 10, 2023, order. The court also lifted the requirement for M.S. to participate in parenting time with Mother. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Continuance

[16] Father first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue the fact-finding hearing. Our standard of review regarding a trial court's decision on a motion to continue is well-settled:

The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Riggin v. Rea Riggin & Sons, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 292, 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). We will reverse the trial court only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion may be found in the denial of a motion for a continuance when the moving party has shown good cause for granting the motion. Id. However, no abuse of discretion will be found when the moving party has not demonstrated that he or she was prejudiced by the denial. Id.

Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

[17] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his continuance because the “GAL produced over 1,000 pages of documents the day before the hearing.” Appellant's Br. at 30. And he contends that he “was denied unfettered access to the GAL report until the day before trial” and that the GAL required Father to view the report in counsel's office, which “effectively barred” him from reviewing the report until the day before trial because he lived in Ohio while his counsel resided in Bloomington, Indiana. Id. And he maintains that his requests were not “strategic” and there was “no indication of delay tactics.” Id. at 31.

[18] However, the fact-finding hearing had been scheduled since July 10, 2024, and Father made no requests to review the GAL's record until the week prior to the hearing. When Father made his request, the GAL agreed to meet with Father's attorney on November 4, a Saturday, to provide him with her electronic record. While Father was not present, Father was on the phone with his attorney the entire time. Thus, Father, through his attorney, was able to learn of the contents of the GAL's file soon after Father made the request.

[19] As for the counseling records and messages, we agree with Mother that Father had methods of obtaining those other than from the GAL. Indeed, Father knew M.S. was in counseling and could have requested the records directly from the counselor at any time. However, he did not subpoena those records until October 29, 2024, a little more than one week prior to the November 7 hearing. Similarly, Father was a party to the Our Family Wizard messages, so he could have obtained and reviewed those at any time. As a result, Father has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the court's denial of his request for a continuance, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied that request.

Issue Two: Modification of Physical Custody

[20] Father next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified physical custody of H.S. We review custody modifications for an abuse of discretion. Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002). Further, as our Supreme Court has stated,

there is a well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters. Appellate courts are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence. On appeal it is not enough that the evidence might support some other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by appellant before there is a basis for reversal. Appellate judges are not to reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness credibility, and the evidence should be viewed most favorably to the judgment.

Steele-Giri v. Steele (In re Marriage of Steele-Giri), 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (citation modified). We will not set aside the findings and judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 123. Where, as here, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions at the request of one of the parties, we apply a two-tiered standard of review, where we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. See Robertson v. Robertson, 60 N.E.3d 1085, 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[21] The party seeking to modify custody bears the burden of demonstrating the existing custody should be altered. Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 124. “[T]his ‘more stringent standard’ is required to support a change in custody, as opposed to an initial custody determination[ ] where there is no presumption for either parent because ‘permanence and stability are considered best for the welfare and happiness of the child.’ ” Id. (quoting Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96, 98 (Ind. 1992)).

[22] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21, a trial court may not modify a child custody order unless the modification is in the best interests of the child and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors enumerated in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-8. And Section 8 provides that the court shall consider the following factors: the age and sex of the children; the wishes of the children's parent or parents; the wishes of the children, with more consideration given if the children are at least fourteen years of age; the interaction and interrelationship of the children with their parents, sibling, and any other person who may significantly affect their best interests; the children's adjustment to their home, school, and community; the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent; evidence that the children have been cared for by a de facto custodian; and a designation in a power of attorney of the children's parent or de facto custodian. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8.

[23] On appeal, Father contends that the court erred when it modified physical custody of H.S. based on its finding that a substantial change in one or more factors had occurred. Father contends that the court relied only on speculative future harm and the challenges that exist between M.S. and Mother to support changing physical custody of H.S. We cannot agree.

[24] The trial court found, and the evidence supports, that Father has interfered with Mother's relationship with M.S. by enrolling M.S. in sports and other activities that conflict with Mother's parenting time and by not enforcing any rules or consequences if M.S. chooses an activity instead of engaging in parenting time with Mother. And Father's interference led to a complete breakdown of the mother-daughter relationship to the point that the court felt compelled to end Mother's parenting time with M.S. altogether.

[25] The evidence further demonstrates that Father is beginning to engage in the same behavior with H.S. Indeed, Father has enrolled H.S. in clubs and sports, including hockey, which could interfere with Mother's parenting time with H.S. Father did not discuss these activities with Mother before enrolling H.S., and these new activities provide Father with the same opportunities to allow H.S. to prioritize practices, games, and other related events over Mother's parenting time. As the court found, this is exactly how it started with M.S.

[26] And, contrary to Father's contentions, the court did not rely on mere “speculation about hypothetical future harm.” Appellant's Br. at 36. Rather, the GAL testified that she is already seeing “indicators” that the same things are happening with H.S. and that Mother is getting delayed or no responses when she tries to contact H.S. Tr. Vol 2 at 129. Similarly, Mother testified that “what has happened with [M.S.] is happening with” H.S. and that Father has “curtailed” her phone calls with H.S. Id. at 216, 228.

[27] Because there is evidence that Father interfered with Mother's relationship with M.S. and that he has begun to take the same actions with H.S., the trial court did not err when it concluded that it is in H.S.’s best interests to not wait until Father has irrevocably destroyed Mother's relationship with another child. We therefore affirm the court's modification of physical custody of H.S.

Issue Three: Contempt

[28] Father next contends that the court abused its discretion when it found him in indirect contempt for the missed parenting time between Mother and M.S. As the Indiana Supreme Court has stated:

It is soundly within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether a party is in contempt, and we review the judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. We will reverse a trial court's finding of contempt only if there is no evidence or inference therefrom to support the finding. The trial court has the inherent power to maintain its dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, rebuke interference with the conduct of business, and punish unseemly behavior.

Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829, 832 (Ind. 2016) (citation modified).

[29] Father contends that the court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt because he “lacked the present ability to force compliance from a nearly 17-year-old child.” Appellant's Br. at 46. According to Father, he was not willfully disobedient; rather, M.S. was “defiant[.]” Id. As such, he contends that the “contempt finding must be reversed.” Id.

[30] However, this Court has “rejected the notion that a custodial parent may justify inaction simply because a child refuses to cooperate with a visitation order.” MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626, 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Indeed, in MacIntosh, this Court affirmed a contempt finding against the mother when her fifteen- and sixteen-year-old children did not visit with the father. Id. That Court noted that the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines “embody the principle that both parents are responsible to ensure that the child complies with the scheduled parenting time.” Id.

[31] Here, the evidence is undisputed that Father took no action to compel M.S. to participate in parenting time with Mother. Father did not discipline M.S. when she refused to visit Mother. And, as the court found, Father has “wrongfully but intentionally empowered [M.S.] to prioritize her sports, social outings, and part-time employment in Ohio, over what should have been a good, positive, and loving relationship with her Mother.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 159. Stated differently, instead of taking responsibility to ensure that M.S. visited with Mother, Father allowed M.S. to make the choice herself, with no repercussion for choosing not to comply with the parenting time order. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it found Father in contempt.

Conclusion

[32] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's motion to continue the fact-finding hearing. Further, the court did not err when it modified physical custody of H.S. And the court did not abuse it discretion when it held Father in contempt for M.S.’s failure to participate in Mother's parenting time. We therefore affirm the court's order.

[33] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.