Brian Niksch, Appellant-Respondent v. Jessica Hicks, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brian Niksch (“Father”) appeals the trial court's orders regarding Jessica Hicks's (“Mother”) motion to modify child support and Father's motion for proceedings supplemental. We reverse and remand with instructions.

Issues

[2] Father raises three issues, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it modified Mother's weekly child support amount.

2. Whether the trial court erred when it calculated the amount of Mother's overpayment of child support.

3. Whether the trial court erred when it calculated the amount to be garnished from Mother's pay for her debt to Father.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The parties were married, and Mother filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on September 29, 2021. The parties subsequently entered into a marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the trial court's final decree of dissolution of marriage issued on September 14, 2022. The decree ordered that Mother pay a weekly child support obligation to Father for their two minor children in the amount of $83.00 per week. In addition, the decree entered judgment against Mother in Father's favor for a debt in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00), plus interest, which judgment Father agreed he would refrain from collecting for two years following the date of the dissolution decree.

[4] After a two-year period had elapsed, Father filed motions for proceedings supplemental to collect upon the $11,000 judgment. On September 20, 2024, Mother filed a verified motion to modify the marital settlement agreement in which she alleged, in part, that child support should be modified on the ground that the parties’ oldest child was emancipated because he had reached nineteen years of age.

[5] At an omnibus hearing on April 2, 2025, the trial court addressed several pending motions, including Father's motions for proceedings supplemental and Mother's motion to modify the settlement agreement. Mother testified that the amount of child support should be reduced because the parties’ oldest child had turned nineteen years old and was emancipated. Mother further testified that she no longer had income from any source other than her employer, La Porte Community School Corporation (“LCSC”). Father offered into evidence, and the court admitted without objection, his Exhibit 2, which is his 2023 tax return showing his annual income was $65,686, and his Exhibit 25, which is a Financial Declaration Form completed and signed by Mother on October 23, 2024. Exhibit 25 shows that Mother's gross income from her current employment as a teacher with LCSC is $2,763.17, bi-monthly. It also shows that, in the past, Mother had had income from sources other than LCSC, specifically, from employment with Dicks’ Sporting Goods in 2022-2023 and Education Testing Service in June of 2020 through June of 2024.

[6] Father testified that, in the last ten years, Mother had had additional income from LCSC for contract work to provide extracurricular services.¹ Father offered into evidence and had admitted, without objection, his Exhibit 16, which is a copy of Mother's contract to provide such services for LCSC in the 2023-2024 school year, and Exhibit 17, which is interrogatory responses from LCSC. Exhibits 16 and 17 show that Mother's total pay for all such extracurricular services in the 2023-2024 school year was $10,752.

[7] Father also called Mother as a witness and elicited testimony from her that: she has never resigned any of her “extracurricular positions,” Tr. Vol. 3 at 205; she performed those extracurricular services for the current school year and received an unspecified amount of payment for those services in December 2024; and she did not include the income from her contract work with LCSC in her Financial Declaration Form in Father's Exhibit 25 because she did not “interpret[ ]” the form as asking for that information, id. at 215.

[8] On August 6, 2025, the trial court entered an order in which it concluded, in relevant part, that Mother owes Father a debt of $11,000, plus interest, that must be paid through garnishing $75 from each of Mother's bi-monthly paychecks until the debt is paid in full. The order also found that the parties’ oldest child was nineteen years old and emancipated. Therefore, the court modified Mother's child support payment to $54.50 per week and attached a child support worksheet showing how the court arrived at the $54.50 figure. The worksheet shows that Father's weekly gross income remained essentially the same at $1,105.60 ² but that Mother's weekly gross income had changed from the $1,400 amount used to calculate the original amount of child support ordered on September 14, 2022, to $1,285.20. The trial court ordered that the new weekly child support amount is retroactive to September 20, 2024, which resulted in an “overage payment” by Mother, who was current on child suppor payments. Appealed Order at 2. The court ordered that Mother be credited for the overage payment, which the court calculated as $2,070. The court further ordered that “[a]ny and all other motions now before the Court currently are hereby denied,” and “[w]ith the entry of this Order, there remain no pending petitions before the Court.” Id.

[9] On September 8, 2025, Father filed a motion to correct alleged errors in the calculation of the new amount of child support and the amount of the child support overpayment, and a motion to reconsider the amount of the garnishment order to pay back the $11,000 debt. On December 3, the trial court heard arguments from the parties on Father's motions. On that same date, the court issued an order regarding the appointment of a guardian ad litem and ordered that “all prior court orders not specifically modified herein shall remain in full force and effect.” App. at 33. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53.3(A), Father's motion to correct error was deemed denied on January 2, 2026. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[10] “[T]here is a well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (citation modified). Moreover, a trial court's “calculation of child support is presumptively valid,” and we will reverse a support order only for clear error. Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 738 (Ind. 2015). That is, reversal of a child support order is proper only where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.; see also Cubel v. Cubel, 876 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 (Ind. 2007) (citation modified) (“Determinations of child support obligations are within the trial court's discretion and will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.”).

Issue One: Modification of Child Support

[11] The most important concern of a court in any action involving child support must be the best interests of the child. Ward v. Ward, 763 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “And one of the purposes of child support is to provide a child with regular and uninterrupted support.” Id. (citation modified). Thus, the Indiana Code provides that, with some exceptions not applicable here, child support may be modified only:

(1) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or

(2) upon a showing that:

(A) a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs by more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; and

(B) the order requested to be modified or revoked was issued at least twelve (12) months before the petition requesting modification was filed.

Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1(b).

[12] Circumstances that may be so substantial and continuing as to justify a modification of child support include a child reaching the age of nineteen and thereby becoming emancipated, see, e.g., Patton v. Patton, 48 N.E.3d 17, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing I.C. § 31-16-6-6(a)), and “a change in the income of the parents,” Ind. Child Support Guideline 4, Commentary, “Substantial and Continuing Change of Circumstances.”³

[13] Here, Mother provided evidence that the parties’ oldest child had turned nineteen years of age on March 17, 2024, a fact which Father does not dispute. Therefore, the trial court did not err in recalculating the child support amount to exclude the emancipated child. In addition, contrary to Father's assertions, there was evidence before the trial court that Mother's income had changed since the time of the initial child support order, while Father's income had stayed substantially the same. Specifically, both Father's and Mother's testimonies and Father's exhibits establish that Mother no longer received income from any source other than LCSC. That evidence supports the trial court's conclusion in the worksheet attached to its order ⁴ that Father's weekly gross income is $1,105.60 and Mother's weekly gross income is $1,285.20.

[14] However, Father maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined Mother's weekly gross income without including Mother's income from her contract work providing extracurricular services to LCSC. “Under the Child Support Guidelines, each parent's weekly gross income is the starting point for determining the child support obligation,” Stanke v. Schmitt, 273 N.E.3d 89, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), and weekly gross income “is broadly defined” as including “income from any source[,]” Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 982 N.E.2d 366, 373-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), including irregular income. Irregular income may include income from overtime, bonuses, or “occasional work.” Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942, 950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Child Supp. G. 3, cmt. 2(b)).

[15] Indiana Child Support Guideline 3(A), Commentary 2(b), provides insight into how a trial court should account for “irregular” income:

There are numerous forms of income that are irregular or nonguaranteed, which cause difficulty in accurately determining the gross income of a party. Overtime, commissions, bonuses, periodic partnership distributions, voluntary extra work and extra hours worked by a professional are all illustrations, but far from an all-inclusive list, of such items. Each is includable in the total income approach taken by the Guidelines, but each is also very fact sensitive.

․. Care should be taken to set support based on dependable income, while at the same time providing children with the support to which they are entitled.

When the court determines that it is not appropriate to include irregular income in the determination of the child support obligation, the court should express its reasons. When the court determines that it is appropriate to include irregular income, an equitable method of treating such income may be to require the obligor to pay a fixed percentage of overtime, bonuses, etc., in child support on a periodic but predetermined basis (weekly, bi- weekly, monthly, quarterly) rather than by the process of determining the average of the irregular income by past history and including it in the obligor's gross income calculation.

[16] As this Court has previously noted,

[t]he thrust of the commentary and related cases is that the trial court's discretion in excluding [irregular] income is grounded in a determination that the income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent to maintain. In addition to articulating its reasons for excluding this type of income, the trial court's reasoning must indicate that its determination was made in light of these principles.

Marshall v. Marshall, 92 N.E.3d 1112, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quotations and citations excluded); see also Railing v. Hawkins, 746 N.E.2d 980, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (citation modified) (“[T]he dependability of a parent's [irregular] income and the parent's ability to maintain such income are crucial factors in determining whether such income should be included in a parent's weekly gross income. Therefore, the trial court must indicate in its findings and conclusions that it has considered those factors.”).

[17] While the trial court may very well have excluded Mother's income from her contract work to provide extracurricular services to LCSC because it determined that it was irregular income that was not dependable, we cannot say so with any certainty because the trial court did not state in its order its reason(s) for excluding Mother's irregular income from her weekly gross income. That was clear error. Therefore, we must reverse the child support order and remand with instructions to make a determination, in conformity with Child Support Guideline 3, as to whether Mother's irregular income should be included or excluded and to state the reasons for the same. Cf., e.g., Railing, 746 N.E.2d at 983 (reversing and remanding with instructions to issue findings and conclusions regarding irregular income).

Issue Two: Calculation of Child Support Overpayment

[18] Father asserts that the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating the amount of child support that Mother overpaid, and we agree.⁵ However, as this matter is remanded to the trial court for findings and conclusions regarding Mother's irregular income, and as those findings may result in a different amount of weekly child support, we cannot state with any certainty what the overpayment amount would be. Rather, we remand with instructions to recalculate the amount of Mother's child support overpayment, if any, based on the trial court's new findings and conclusions regarding Mother's weekly gross income and child support obligation.

Issue Three: Calculation of Garnishment Amount

[19] It is undisputed that Mother owes Father a debt of $11,000, plus interest. The trial court determined that debt should be repaid by garnishment of Mother's wages from her employment. When a court determines that garnishment of wages is appropriate for satisfaction of a judgment, the percentage of an individual's disposable earnings ⁶ that may be garnished should be a maximum of twenty-five percent ⁷ of those earnings or, upon a showing of good cause, an amount equal to less than twenty-five percent and at least ten percent. I.C. § 24-4.5-5-105 (2025).⁸

[20] Here, the trial court ordered that $75.00 per pay period be garnished from Mother's pay until the debt of $11,000, plus interest, is paid in full. However, the trial court did not indicate what Mother's disposable income is and how it arrived at the $75.00 garnishment amount.⁹ We instruct the trial court on remand to determine Mother's disposable income and calculate any amount to be garnished from her wages in accordance with Indiana Code Section 24-4.5-5-105 (2025).

Conclusion

[21] The trial court erred when it failed to state whether Mother's income from her contracts with LCSC was included or excluded, as irregular income, from her weekly gross income and its reasoning for the same. The trial court also erred when it failed to determine Mother's disposable earnings and base the amount garnished from her wages on a percentage of those earnings as required by statute.

[22] Therefore, we reverse the child support and garnishment orders and remand for findings and conclusions in conformity with this decision. Specifically, we instruct the trial court to:

(1) determine whether Mother's irregular income from her contracts with LCSC should be included in her income for child support purposes, as required under Child Support Guideline 3, and state the reasons therefor;

(2) redetermine Mother's child support obligation if her irregular income is included;

(3) determine the amount of Mother's disposable earnings, what percentage of those disposable earnings will be garnished to satisfy the debt owed to Father, and why that percentage was chosen.

[23] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, Mother performed six different coaching and coordinating jobs for LCSC, each for a set amount of pay.

2.   This amount is only one dollar below Father's weekly gross income used to determine the original September 14, 2022, child support order.

3.   “Child support orders should comply with the Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines[,] ․ [and a] calculation of child support made under the Guidelines is presumptively valid.” In re Paternity of W.M.T., 180 N.E.3d 290, 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. And, while a trial court may deviate from the Guidelines, when it does so it must “provide[ ] written findings to justify the deviation.” Id.

4.   See Walters v. Walters, 901 N.E.2d 508, 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citation modified) (noting the basis for the amount of child support awarded may be revealed “either by specific findings or by incorporation [of] a proper worksheet”).

5.   If Mother's child support obligation was $54.50 per week, retroactive to September 20, 2024, she would have overpaid child support by $28.50 per week (i.e., $83 - $54.50 = $28.50). The period of time she would have overpaid was 46 weeks (i.e., September 20, 2024, to August 6, 2025). Therefore, her total overpayment would have been $1,311 (i.e., $28.50 x 46 weeks), not the $2,070 calculated by the trial court.

6.   “ ‘[D]isposable earnings’ means that part of the earnings of an individual, including wages, commissions, income, rents or profits remaining after the deduction from those earnings of amounts required by law to be withheld[.]” I.C. § 24-4.5-5-105(1)(a) (2025).

7.   This maximum includes any amount garnished under all garnishment orders, including child support withholding orders. See I.C. § 24-4.5-5-105(8) (2025).

8.   This statute has been repealed and recodified at Indiana Code Section 37-2-6-4, effective July 1, 2026, but the parts of the statute applicable here remain substantially the same.

9.   We note that, even if Mother's disposable income was found to be $2,570.40 (i.e., $1,285.20 per week), $75 is well below even ten percent of that income, which is the minimum garnishment amount permitted under Indiana Code Section 24-4.5-5-105(2)(a)(ii) (2025) (now I.C. § 37-2-6-4(b)(1)(B)).

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.