Logan Rian Smith, Appellant-Petitioner v. Kara Lynn Betten, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] K.J.B.-S. (“Child”) was born in December 2023 to Kara Lynn Betten (“Mother”) and Logan Rian Smith (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”). Since before Child's birth, Parents, who have mostly represented themselves, have been embroiled in litigation over paternity and other issues concerning Child. In November 2025, the trial court issued an order purporting to resolve all outstanding issues. Father moved to correct error, arguing that the trial court did not address his argument that his child support should be reduced based on the “new parenting time schedule[, which] materially increases [his] number of overnights beyond what was used in the” original child-support calculation. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 23. In response, the trial court issued the following order:

Father seeks to [sic] credit for additional overnights with the child. Father to submit proposed child support calculation sheet with the added overnights and which includes the present child support calculations. All other terms of the previously granted orders will remain in place and credit for added overnights is the only issue under consideration by the Court.

Order, Cause No. 79D05-2307-JP-63 (Jan. 12, 2026) (emphases added). But before this issue was resolved, the judge recused herself. Father then filed a Notice of Appeal.

[2] On appeal, Father argues that the trial court should have addressed the parenting-time-credit issue and asks us to remand the case “with instructions to recalculate child support under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines using supported income findings and the correct parenting-time credit.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. Mother did not file an appellee's brief.

[3] We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from the limited category of interlocutory orders made appealable by rule. See Ind. Appellate Rules 5 and 14. A final judgment is one that disposes of all claims as to all parties. App. R. 2(H). The order Father challenges is not a final judgment on the parenting-time-credit issue. The trial court did not decide whether Father's child support should be reduced for the additional overnights. To the contrary, it later expressly identified that question as “the only issue under consideration” and directed Father to submit a child-support obligation worksheet so that child support could be recalculated. The judge then recused before resolving the issue, and it remains pending below before a new judge (the fourth one since this case was filed). Indeed, the CCS reflects that related child-support matters, including Father's request for Mother's income and employment records, are still being litigated below. To the extent Father contends that his motion to correct error was deemed denied under Trial Rule 53.3(A), thereby making the November 2025 order final and appealable, that order did not resolve the parenting-time-credit issue in any event—as the trial court itself acknowledged—so there is no final ruling on it for us to review. Because there is no final, appealable order on the parenting-time-credit issue, and no interlocutory appeal was authorized under Appellate Rule 14, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it. Once the trial court resolves the issue, Father may appeal from a final order if he chooses.

[4] Dismissed.

Vaidik, Judge.

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