John Meyer, Appellant-Respondent v. Sarah Lamb, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] John Meyer (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order that restricted his parenting time with his thirteen-year-old daughter, L.M. (“L.M.”) and his ten-year-old son, U.M. (“U.M.”) (collectively “the children”). Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his parenting time with the children because there was no evidence that he endangered them. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted Father's parenting time with the children.

Facts

[3] Father and Sarah Lamb (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”) married in 2012. At that time, Father, who was recovering from a substance use disorder, had been sober since 2008. Parents’ daughter, L.M., was born in 2012, and their son, U.M., was born in 2015. Parents divorced in 2017. Pursuant to an agreed order (“the 2017 Agreed Order”), Parents had joint legal custody of the children, and Father had overnight visits with the children six out of every fourteen days. Parents agreed to follow the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (“the IPTG”) for summer and holiday parenting time. In 2019, Father married Rebekah Koker (“Stepmother”), who is recovering from a substance use disorder.

[4] In 2022, Father began Ketamine therapy under the care of a physician. Also in 2022, Father began using Psilocybin mushrooms for therapeutic purposes. Father grew these mushrooms at a friend's house. Father's therapeutic use of Ketamine and Psilocybin mushrooms led him to relapse.

[5] In February 2023, Father, with heroin in his possession, drove U.M. from his home in southern Indiana to Indianapolis to participate in a wrestling tournament. After arriving in Indianapolis, Father overdosed on the heroin, and then seven-year-old U.M. found an unresponsive Father in their hotel room. U.M. ran out of the room and found the parent of another wrestler, who called 911. An EMT revived Father with Narcan and transported him to the hospital while U.M. remained in the hotel with a friend's parent. Mother and Stepfather (“Stepfather”) immediately drove to Indianapolis. Father told Mother that he had been hospitalized for pneumonia, and Stepmother told Mother that Father had suffered a stroke. Mother and Stepfather, who were unaware that Father had overdosed on heroin, stayed in the hotel room where the overdose had occurred.

[6] When Mother subsequently learned that Father had overdosed on heroin, she filed an emergency petition requesting that Father's parenting time be supervised. In May 2023, Parents reached an agreement, which the trial court memorialized in an agreed order (“the 2023 Agreed Order”). Pursuant to the terms of the 2023 Agreed Order, Father agreed not to consume any alcohol or illegal drugs before or during his parenting time. The 2023 Agreed Order further provided that from May 10, 2023 until June 15, 2023, paternal grandmother (“Paternal Grandmother”) or another individual agreed upon by Mother and Father in writing was required to supervise Father's parenting time with the children, which was to occur every other weekend from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on both Saturday and Sunday. Parents also agreed that Father could have mid-week parenting time every Thursday for four hours as well as up to ten hours of holiday and special day parenting time on the holiday or special day. Father was not allowed to operate a motor vehicle with the children while he was exercising parenting time.

[7] Parents also agreed that beginning June 15, 2023, the supervision requirement on Father's parenting time could be lifted so long as Father submitted to a hair follicle drug screen with an extended opiates panel and the test results were negative for illegal substances. Further, pursuant to the terms of the 2023 Agreed Order, beginning September 15, 2023, Father would be allowed to resume overnight parenting time so long as he submitted to a hair follicle drug screen with an extended opiates panel and the test results were negative for illegal substances. Father agreed to pay for the two hair follicle drug tests and to tender his drug test results to Mother.

[8] In addition, the 2023 Agreed Order provided that Mother could request that Father submit to up to two additional hair follicle drug tests. Mother agreed to pay for the drug tests, and Father agreed to reimburse Mother for the cost of the drug tests if the results were positive.

[9] Although Father signed the 2023 Agreed Order, he continued to regularly use drugs, including heroin, methamphetamine, and Xanax, throughout the summer of 2023. In addition, although Father submitted to the two hair follicle drug tests required by the 2023 Agreed Order, he was able to pass one of the tests, by “clean[ing]” his hair using substances such as vinegar and Skin So Soft. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 102). In addition, although he failed the other hair follicle drug test, he changed the results and showed Mother the altered results, which indicated that he had passed the test. From May through September 2023, Father was able to hide his drug use from Mother, Stepmother, and Paternal Grandmother.

[10] As set forth in the 2023 Agreed Order, in September 2023, Father resumed the parenting time as set forth in the 2017 Agreed Order, including six overnight visits with the children every fourteen days. However, during the following year, Father continued to use heroin, methamphetamine, and Xanax. Father obtained the drugs from the “dark web[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 87). Despite his daily use of multiple drugs, Father was able to hide this drug use from his employer, Mother, Stepmother, and Paternal Grandmother.

[11] On October 20, 2024, L.M. told Mother that she smelled marijuana at Father's house during one of the children's visits. Mother spoke with Father at Father's residence and also smelled marijuana. Although Father denied using marijuana, he admitted that he had recently used Xanax and alcohol. Pursuant to the 2023 Agreed Order, Mother asked Father to submit to a hair follicle drug screen. The following day, Mother asked Father to report to a lab for a drug test. Mother went to the lab and prepaid for the drug test, but Father did not go to the lab or submit to the hair follicle drug test. Rather, Father, who knew that a drug test would be positive, went to Tennessee and entered an inpatient drug treatment program. At the time of his admission to this program, Father acknowledged that his daily drug use included Xanax and a one-fourth to one-half gram mixture of methamphetamine and heroin. Father also acknowledged that he drank a fifth of alcohol daily. In addition, at the time of his admission to the program, Father tested positive for fentanyl.

[12] One week after Father had entered the inpatient treatment program, Mother filed a petition for a temporary order restricting Father's parenting time, wherein she asked the trial court to enter an order prohibiting Father from exercising unsupervised parenting time. Mother also filed a petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support, wherein she asked the trial court to restrict Father's parenting time “to prevent physical and/or emotional harm to the parties’ children.” (App. Vol. 2 at 38). In addition, Mother filed an information for contempt, wherein she asked the trial court to hold Father in contempt for violating the 2023 Agreed Order by failing to submit to her requested hair follicle drug test in October 2024. Mother also asked the trial court to order Father to pay the attorney fees that she had incurred as a result of Father's contempt.

[13] Father completed a thirty-day inpatient treatment program in Tennessee and returned to Indiana in November 2024. In March 2025, the trial court held a hearing on Mother's petition for a temporary order restricting Father's parenting time. During the hearing, Father testified that he: (1) had not used drugs since October 2024; (2) was attending five Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings per week; and (3) had a sponsor. He also testified that he had attended one session with addiction specialist and therapist Jarred Kelley (“Therapist Kelley”).

[14] Further, Father acknowledged that, before he had completed the inpatient drug treatment program, he had used drugs daily, including during his parenting time with the children. According to Father, the children frequently fought and their arguments “triggered” him to use drugs. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 52). Father also testified that he had manufactured methamphetamine in the past. In addition, Father testified that his employer had terminated his employment after he had completed the inpatient drug treatment program in Tennessee.

[15] Also, during the hearing, Mother testified that, from May 2023 until October 2024, she had had no idea that Father had been using drugs and that “he [had] hid[den] it exceptionally well.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 82). Mother further testified that she believed that Father's parenting time with the children needed to be supervised to ensure the children's safety.

[16] At the end of the March 2025 hearing, the trial court granted Mother's petition to temporarily restrict Father's parenting time pending future hearings. Specifically, the trial court ordered that Father's parenting time was to occur up to two times per week at the Parenting Time Center or another supervising agency approved by Mother. In addition, the trial court ordered that Father could communicate with the children by text message and that Mother could monitor these communications. The trial court also ordered that Father could have a daily telephone call with the children and that Mother could supervise these calls. Further, the trial court ordered that Father could attend any public events for the children.

[17] In July and August 2025, the trial court held a hearing on Mother's remaining petitions. At the beginning of the July 2025 hearing, the trial court incorporated the evidence from the March 2025 hearing into the July 2025 hearing. Also, during the July 2025 hearing, Mother testified that she had concerns that Father had not remained sober since the March 2025 hearing. Specifically, Mother explained that Father had sent the children screenshots from his cell phone, which had revealed concerning cell phone apps on Father's cell phone. First, Mother had noticed an IndiaMART app. According to Mother, this app could be used to purchase both Xanax and the precursors to methamphetamine production. Mother testified that she was concerned about this app because Father had previously manufactured methamphetamine. Second, Mother had noticed a Weedmaps app. According to Mother, this app could be used to search for marijuana dispensaries. Mother had also noticed that Father's cell phone had text messages from a person with whom Father had previously used drugs. Mother further testified that during one of Father's telephone calls with the children, she had noticed that Father's speech had been slurred. During another telephone call, Father had been sniffling during the entire call and had asked Stepmother for eye drops. Mother asked the trial court to continue to restrict Father's parenting time to supervised visits. In addition, she asked the trial court to hold Father in contempt for failing to comply with the 2023 Agreed Order by refusing to submit to the drug test in October 2024 and to order Father to pay her attorney fees related to the contempt.

[18] During Stepfather's testimony, Mother's counsel asked him if he had “observed any signs in [Father] that [he] associate[d] to be under the influence of an intoxicant[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 192). Stepfather responded that during one telephone call, Father's “voice was more labored, and [he was] breathing heavier.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 192). According to Stepfather, Father had repeated statements to U.M. and there was “no real content to ․ the questions he was asking.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 192).

[19] Father testified that the IndiaMART app was a business to business app that he had used to look for a diagnostic tool for his car. In addition, Father testified that he had installed the Weedmaps app because he had been curious about marijuana regulations and laws. Regarding the text messages from the person with whom he had previously used drugs, Father explained that the person had been sober for five months and that Father was his sponsor. Further, Father explained that his sniffling and need for eye drops were caused by his allergies. When asked about his slurred speech, Father responded that he did not know “where that[ ] [was] from.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 83). Father further testified that he was “no longer a threat” to his children and that he would like to start out with supervised visits at Paternal Grandmother's house and “phase back” to the parenting time set forth in the 2017 Agreed Order. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 95).

[20] Therapist Kelley, who had seen Father two times since the March 2025 hearing, testified that Father had tested negative on a hair follicle test and that he believed that Father was maintaining his sobriety. According to Therapist Kelly, he did not think that “supervised parenting time [was] an immediate ․ need[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 250).

[21] In addition, Lisa Seif (“Consultant Seif”), a consultant with the Vanderburgh County Treatment Courts and a licensed clinical addition counselor, testified that “the American Medical Association has determined that you're not even in ․ full remission until you have one year of abstinence, and now it's even on to five years to be full remission. Just like cancer.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 116).

[22] In September 2025, the trial court issued an order that provides, in relevant part, as follows:

11. Mother and [Stepfather] have had recent conversations with Father by phone in which he was slurring his words. On another occasion, Father was excessively sniffling which caused concerns for Mother. Father is still in contact with someone he used drugs with in the past. Father recently had the “weedmaps” application on his phone. In observing the testimony, the Court finds Mother and [Stepfather]’s testimony credible and compelling. Conversely, when addressing these issues, the Court found Father's testimony not credible.

* * * * *

13. Mother's Motion to Modify Custody and Parenting Time is hereby granted and Father's parenting time shall continue to be supervised at the Parenting Time Center (PTC). The Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood of harm to the Children if Father's parenting time is not supervised and that it is in the best interest of the Children that Father's parenting time is supervised. Father's parenting time shall progress according to the following Schedule.

14. PHASE I: This phase shall begin as of January 12, 2025 (Father's first PTC session) and shall [continue] until June 30, 2026. Father shall have supervised parenting time at the PTC, which shall occur up to 1 time per week. Father shall be permitted telephone calls, text messages, video visits, and video gaming communication with the children, which may be monitored by Mother as described below.

15. PHASE II: This phase shall begin on July 1, 2026, and shall last until June 30, 2027. Father shall have supervised parenting time one time per week, for 3 hours in a public place. Examples of such settings include - but are not limited to - parks, restaurants, libraries and other businesses the Children may enjoy. This parenting time shall NOT take place in a private residence. Supervision of parenting time shall be by at least one of the following individuals: Mike Jones, [Mother], [Stepfather], Maternal Grandparents, or any individual(s) the parties mutually agree upon in writing prior to the supervision.

16. PHASE III: This phase shall begin July 1, 2027, and shall last through January 1, 2028. Father shall have unsupervised parenting time once per week in a public place, at Paternal Grandmother's home, or any other private residence the parties mutually agreed upon in writing prior to the visit. Father's parenting time shall be 4 hours if it occurs on a school night. Father's parenting time shall be up to 8 hours if it occurs during the summer or on the weekend.

* * * * *

18. At the conclusion of Phase III, the Father may petition the Court to determine if a modification of parenting time is in the best interests of the children. If Father fails to petition for modification, the parties shall continue to abide by the terms of Phase III.

19. At all phases, Father shall be permitted, and is encouraged, to attend all extracurricular activities and school events open to parents and/or the public. He may continue to engage with the children at such events as time and circumstances of the event permit.

20. Father shall continue to be permitted reasonable phone contact with the Children throughout the week which shall include regular phone calls, video calls, text messages, or joint video game play. Mother shall be permitted to monitor this communication as she deems appropriate and may terminate any contact for a reasonable period if the communication becomes inappropriate.

(App. Vol. 2 at 15-16).

[23] The trial court also found that Father was in contempt for violating the 2023 Agreed Order when he refused to comply with Mother's request that he take a hair follicle drug test in October 2024. In addition, the trial court's order provided that Father could purge himself of this contempt by reimbursing Mother $6,000 for her attorney fees and by remaining drug and alcohol free.

[24] Father now appeals.

Decision

[25] Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his parenting time with the children. We disagree.

[26] As a preliminary matter, we note that there is a well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and deference to the trial court in family law matters. Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016). 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.” Id. (cleaned up). “Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial court judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted because of their unique, direct interactions with the parties face-to-face, often over an extended period of time.” Hahn-Weisz v. Johnson, 189 N.E.3d 1136, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (cleaned up). “Thus enabled to assess credibility and character through both factual testimony and intuitive discernment, our trial judges are in a superior position to ascertain information and apply common sense, particularly in the determination of the best interests of the involved children.” Id. (cleaned up).

[27] A decision about parenting time requires us to give foremost consideration to the best interests of the children. Rickman v. Rickman, 993 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We generally review parenting time decisions for an abuse of discretion. Id. If the record reveals a rational basis for the trial court's determination, there is no abuse of discretion. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Id.

[28] Indiana has long recognized that the right of parents to visit their children is a “precious privilege[.]” Patton v. Patton, 48 N.E.3d 17, 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). However, Indiana Code § 31-17-4-2 provides as follows:

The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child. However, the court shall not restrict a parent's parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.

Even though this statute uses the term “might,” this Court has previously interpreted the language to mean that a court may not restrict parenting time unless that parenting time “would” endanger the children's physical health or emotional development. Bardonner v. Bardonner, 231 N.E.3d 245, 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied.

[29] Here, Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting his parenting time because “[t]here is no evidence that parenting time with [him] continued to endanger the children at the time of the trial court's order.” (Father's Br. 9) (modified from upper case) (emphasis added). Father appears to acknowledge that he had endangered his children in the past but argues that there was no evidence that he endangered them at the time the trial court issued its order. In support of his argument, Father directs us to his testimony at the hearing that he has been sober since November 2024, when he was discharged from the inpatient substance abuse treatment program. He also directs us to Therapist Kelley's testimony that supervised parenting time was not an immediate need.

[30] However, the trial court was under no obligation to credit either Father's or Therapist Kelly's testimony and apparently did not. Specifically, our review of the evidence reveals that Mother and Stepfather gave specific reasons for believing that Father was still using drugs, including Father's slurred and repetitive speech, his sniffling, and his red eyes. Further, Mother testified about the concerning apps that she had found on Father's cell phone, including an app that could be used to purchase Xanax and the precursors to manufacturing methamphetamine and an app that could be used to locate marijuana dispensaries. The trial court found Mother's and Stepfather's testimony, which support a finding that the children were endangered, to be credible. On the other hand, the trial court found that Father's testimony was not credible. Father's argument is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Rickman, 993 N.E.2d at 1168. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it restricted Father's parenting time.¹

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his parenting time for three years. Specifically, he characterizes the length of the restriction as “punitive” and argues that “Father's contempt was the ‘catalyst’ for the trial court's order.” (Father's Br. 9, 12). However, we note that Consultant Seif testified that it may take up to five years for an addict to be in “full remission.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 116). In addition, we agree with Mother that “Father's attempt to characterize the trial court's thoughtful, phased-in order as ․ punitive ignores the seriousness of [Father's substance use] problem and its impact on his children.” (Mother's Br. 18). As Mother points out, when the trial court entered its order, “the trial court considered Father's deception, its impact on the court's ability to rely on test results, and the severity of Father's substance use.” (Mother's Br. 18). Under such circumstances, the three-year phased in parenting time plan was “a necessary measure to protect the children, not a punishment.” (Mother's Br. 18). We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J. concur.