HOLMES v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Sheldon Holmes took his five-week-old daughter from her mother and disappeared with the child for five days. He was convicted of Class C misdemeanor interference with custody, among other offenses. On appeal, he challenges only his conviction for interference with custody, arguing that the State failed to prove the child's mother possessed custody rights because no court had ever entered a custody order. Indiana law, however, expressly provides that a biological mother has custody of her child born out of wedlock. We therefore affirm.

Facts

[2] Holmes and Kara Teague are the unmarried parents of N.T., born in 2024. Teague, as N.T.’s biological mother, is listed on the child's birth certificate, but Holmes is not. At the time of the relevant events, no paternity action had been filed, and no court had adjudicated parentage.¹

[3] In late November 2024, Holmes and Teague became embroiled in a dispute while caring for N.T., who was then five weeks old. The two argued about N.T.’s sleeping arrangement, and Holmes said he did not want to be told how to care for his child. Holmes picked up N.T. from her crib and hit Teague in the neck when she tried to get the child back. As he held N.T., Holmes shoved Teague out of the way and began to exit the house. Teague called 911 and tried to stop Holmes from leaving. Holmes got in his car with N.T. and drove away.

[4] Officers responded to Teague's 911 call and attempted to find Holmes and N.T. to no avail. Over the following days, Teague also tried to locate Holmes and N.T. At one point, she reached Holmes by phone. He went “back and forth” as to whether he would return N.T. but ultimately threatened to keep the child so that Teague would never see her again. Tr., p. 62.

[5] Holmes finally agreed to return N.T. five days later. He arranged with Teague to meet at a local Walmart for the exchange, but at the last minute, he told Teague to meet him at her home. When Teague arrived, she found the front door ajar. N.T. had been left in a bouncer and had defecated in her clothes.

[6] Based on these events, and further disputes between Holmes and Teague in the following weeks, the State charged Holmes with multiple offenses, including Class C misdemeanor interference with custody. Following a bench trial, Holmes was found guilty of Class C misdemeanor interference with custody; Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child; and Level 6 felony intimidation. He was acquitted of two other charges. Holmes was convicted accordingly and sentenced to an aggregate term of 910 days, with a portion of that time to be served on community corrections and another portion suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[7] On appeal, Holmes challenges only his conviction for Class C misdemeanor interference with custody, claiming the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support it. When reviewing such a claim, we consider only the evidence favorable to the verdict and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, without reweighing evidence. Carmouche v. State, 188 N.E.3d 482, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). We affirm “unless no reasonable factfinder could find each element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. To the extent that Holmes's challenge requires us to interpret a statute, we review that legal question de novo. See Spells v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 771 (Ind. 2024).

[8] Holmes's conviction required the State to prove that he knowingly or intentionally took N.T., when she was less than 18 years old, with the intent to deprive Teague of her custody or parenting time rights. See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(b)(1). Holmes does not dispute that he took N.T., that N.T. was under 18, or that he intended to keep her from Teague. He disputes only whether the State proved that Teague had custody or parenting time rights within the meaning of the statute because she lacked a custody order from a court.

[9] Indiana law answers Holmes's challenge directly: “A biological mother of a child born out of wedlock has sole legal custody of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-14-13-1. No court order is required. This statute provides for a few exceptions that are not applicable here—when certain court orders provide otherwise or when a paternity affidavit was executed. See id.

[10] Holmes does not discuss or distinguish this statute. His theory that custody rights “arise only by court order” is not founded in law. Appellant's Br., p. 11. Taken to its logical end, his theory would mean that no parent in Indiana has custody of their own children until they obtain a court decree.

[11] All parties acknowledged at trial that Teague was N.T.’s biological mother. Therefore, she held custody of N.T. as a matter of law from the moment of N.T.’s birth. The State was not required to produce a court order to prove Teague's custody of her own child. Moreover, the interference with custody statute enumerates an elevated version of the offense when the interference violates a court order. See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4(b). Although Holmes was not charged with that elevated offense, this statutory distinction further demonstrates that no court order was required for Holmes's conviction on the base-level offense.

[12] Finding Holmes's argument unavailing, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The parties agree that Holmes is N.T.’s biological father.

Weissmann, Judge.

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