Kate A. Mathis, Appellant-Respondent v. Darby E. Hinton, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In this child custody dispute between Kate Mathis (Mother) and Darby Hinton (Father), the trial court modified its custody order to grant Father, among other things, sole physical custody of his and Mother's nine-year-old daughter, A.H. (Child). The court specifically found in its modification order: “[T]here has been a substantial change in circumstances in [that] ․ Child's mental health has deteriorated in that she ․ has disciplinary actions at [her] school involving inappropriate conduct”; and “It is in the best interest of ․ Child that legal custody and physical custody be modified.” App. Vol. II, pp. 64-65.

[2] Mother appeals the trial court's custody modification, arguing that the court failed to issue statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its decision. Alternatively, Mother argues that the modification was clearly erroneous because the court's findings do not support its conclusion that there was a substantial change in one of the statutory circumstances the court was required to consider in determining Child's best interests. We affirm.

Facts

[3] Child was born to Mother and Father in August 2019. In a subsequent paternity action, the trial court granted Mother sole legal custody of Child while granting Mother and Father joint physical custody. Mother, however, soon moved to Michigan, prompting the trial court to modify its custody order to grant Mother sole legal and sole physical custody of Child. Father received parenting time according to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines for when distance is a major factor.

[4] In April 2024, Father petitioned to modify the trial court's custody order, generally alleging: “[T]here have been substantial and continuing circumstances to warrant modification as to physical and legal custody,” and “[t]he current order on physical and legal custody is no longer in [Child's] best interest.” App. Vol. III, p. 45. After a two-day hearing on Father's petition, the trial court modified its custody order to grant Father sole physical custody of Child and “sole authority to make healthcare decisions” for Child “absent a bona fide emergency.” App. Vol. II, p. 65. Mother appeals.¹

Discussion and Decision

[5] Mother challenges the trial court's custody modification order, arguing that the court failed to issue statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alternatively, Mother argues that the modification is clearly erroneous because the court's findings do not support its conclusion that there was a substantial change in one of the statutory circumstances the court was required to consider in determining Child's best interests. Neither claim prevails.

I. The Trial Court Issued Findings and Conclusions

[6] When a trial court issues a final order awarding custody, modifying custody, or denying a custody modification, Indiana Code § 31-14-13-7.5(b)(1) requires the court to include therein “the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the custody order is based.” Here, the trial court's custody modification order stated, among other things:

3. Since the last custody order issued May l7, 2023 ․, there has been a substantial change in circumstances in [that]:

a. The Minor Child's mental health has deteriorated in that she is now seeing a therapist and has disciplinary actions at the school involving inappropriate conduct;

***

10. It is in the best interest of the Minor Child that legal custody and physical custody be modified.

App. Vol. II, pp. 64-65 (emphasis added).

[7] Mother claims these findings of fact and conclusions of law do not satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code § 31-14-13-7.5(b)(1) because they “do[ ] not cite any statute or law upon which the custody order is based.” Appellant's Br., p. 16. The statute, however, does not expressly require such a citation. And we can readily discern the legal basis of the trial court's decision from the findings and conclusions provided. See Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 1999) (stating that findings of fact are sufficient when they “enable this Court to dispose of the issues upon appeal”); Jones v. Gruca, 150 N.E.3d 632, 640-41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (noting that the principal purpose of findings of fact is to ensure the record captures the court's reasons for its decision to allow for informed appellate review).

[8] Though not cited in the trial court's custody modification order, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-21(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a trial court “may not modify a child custody order unless: (1) the modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one ․ or more of the factors that the court may consider under [Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8] ․” (Emphasis added). Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8(6), in turn, provides that, “[i]n determining the best interests of the child, ․ [t]he court shall consider all relevant factors,” including “[t]he mental ․ health of all individuals involved.” (Emphasis added). And here, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law as to both a “substantial change” in Child's “mental health” and Child's general “best interests.” App. Vol. II, pp. 64-65.

[9] As the trial court complied with Indiana Code § 31-14-13-7.5(b)(1) by issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its custody modification order, Mother's argument that the court failed to do so is without merit.

II. The Trial Court's Judgment Is Not Clearly Erroneous

[10] When reviewing statutorily required findings of fact and conclusions of law, “we apply a two-tiered standard of review.” In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009). “First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second we determine whether the findings support the judgment.” Id. “We will set aside the trial court's judgment only if it is clearly erroneous.” Id. “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

[11] Mother does not contest the trial court's finding that “Child's mental health has deteriorated in that she is now seeing a therapist and has disciplinary actions at the school involving inappropriate conduct.” App. Vol. II, p. 64. She argues only that this finding does not support the court's conclusion that there was a substantial change in one of the statutory circumstances the court was required to consider in determining Child's best interests. As indicated above, “[t]he mental ․ health of all individuals involved” is one such circumstance. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(6). But Mother claims the trial court's substantial change conclusion lacks a finding that Child's deteriorated mental health “was just due to any circumstances caused by Mother or that Mother was not adequately addressing the [Child's] needs.” Appellant's Br., p. 19.

[12] Contrary to Mother's suggestion, however, Indiana law does not require that the custodial parent cause the change in circumstances on which a custody modification is based. See Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(a). The change only needs to be substantial. Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249, 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). And “the effect of the change on the child is what makes it either substantial or inconsequential.” Sanford v. Wilburn, 185 N.E.3d 451, 455 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

[13] The trial court's findings as to Child's deteriorated mental health and its effect on Child supports the court's conclusion that there was a substantial change in one of the statutory circumstances required to be considered in determining Child's best interests. The court's judgment is therefore not clearly erroneous.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On appeal, Mother provided the transcript for only the second day of the two-day custody modification hearing. We note that Child's therapist and guardian ad litem both testified on the first day of the hearing, for which a transcript was not provided.

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.