IN RE: the Paternity of T.W.T-B (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Having encountered ambiguity in the trial court's Order on Final Hearing Held November 4, 2025, which was issued on December 4, 2025, we remand for the trial court to resolve the ambiguity before we address the merits of the appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 37(B) (permitting remand while retaining jurisdiction over a pending appeal); Chafin v. Grayson, 761 N.E.2d 474, 477–78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Appellate Rule 37(B) and remanding for the entry of additional findings while retaining jurisdiction over the pending appeal).

[2] The order ruled on a petition to modify child custody—both legal custody and physical custody—and parenting time as well. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 56 (asking the trial court to “grant[ ] Father sole legal and physical custody of the minor child” and “determin[e] reasonable parenting time for Mother”). At one point, the order appears to address both types of custody, stating: “The Court finds that there has been a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a modification of custody.” Id. at 25 (emphasis added). The beginning of the next sentence appears to confirm this intent, starting with: “Father's Petition for the Modification of Custody and Parenting Time is granted ․” Id. But the rest of the sentence seems to limit the custody decision. The full sentence reads: “Father's Petition for the Modification of Custody and Parenting Time is granted as the Court believes it to be in the best interest of the minor child that Father is awarded primary physical custody of the minor child.” Id. (emphasis added).

[3] From the language used, we are unable to clearly discern (1) whether the trial court intended to resolve the issue of legal custody and (2) if so, whether the court intended for its best interests finding to apply to the issue of legal custody, rather than only physical custody as the finding is presently drafted. Under the circumstances, we retain appellate jurisdiction while remanding with instructions to the trial court to resolve this ambiguity in the written order, with an amended written order to be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Indiana no later than forty-five days from the date of this opinion.¹ See App. R. 37(B) (“The Court on Appeal may ․ remand the case while retaining jurisdiction ․”); see also Chafin, 761 N.E.2d at 477–78 (applying Appellate Rule 37(B)). After entry of the amended order, we will address the merits of the appeal.

[4] Remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On remand, the trial court is free to clarify other aspects of its order, such as its decision to deviate from the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines in a manner that “result[s] in parenting time less than the minimum set forth [in the Guidelines].” Ind. Parenting Time Guidelines Preamble (C)(3) (requiring “a written explanation indicating why the deviation is necessary or appropriate in the case”).

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Weissmann, J., concur.