Melissa Bacon, Appellant-Petitioner v. Kevin Weinzapfel, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] When modifying the child support of Kevin Weinzapfel (“Father”), the trial court excluded his veterans disability benefits from his weekly gross income determination. Melissa Bacon (“Mother”) filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. Mother appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court erred by excluding Father's veterans disability benefits from his weekly gross income determination.

[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Father and Mother (collectively, “Parents”) have three children together born in 2005, 2008, and 2010. In 2016, Parents divorced. In its dissolution of marriage decree, the trial court ordered Parents to exercise joint legal and shared physical custody of the children. The trial court also ordered Father to pay $72.50 in weekly child support, which was lower than the amount recommended by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. The trial court determined this deviation was “just and proper” because Father “assum[ed] the majority of [the] marital debt” in the dissolution decree. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 50. In 2017, Father's child support obligation was further decreased on “the parties’ agreement,” id., after the birth of Father's subsequent child.

[4] In May 2024, Mother filed a petition to modify child support. Father subsequently filed a motion to emancipate Parents’ oldest child, who was attending college. In April 2025, the trial court issued an order granting the petition to modify child support and denying the motion to emancipate. In modifying child support, the trial court determined that Father's weekly gross income was $1,769.99, and “us[ed] a parenting time credit of ninety-eight overnights” with the children, Appellant's App. Vol. II at 54. Relevant for this appeal, the trial court “did not decrease Father's child support obligation based on his assumption of the marital debt” as it previously had. Id. The trial court also rejected Father's request that his educational contributions for the oldest child be limited to Father's Children of Disabled Veterans (“CDV”) tuition and fee exemption benefit.

[5] Father appealed the trial court's ruling, and a panel of this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. See Weinzapfel v. Weinzapfel, 274 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. not sought. The panel affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to emancipate and affirmed its decision not to limit Father's educational contributions to his CDV benefit. Id. at 509–511. With regard to the child support modification, the panel reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by calculating Father's child support based on only 98 overnights of parenting time credit. Id. at 508–09. The panel also instructed the trial court on remand to “include a finding to explain to Father why it discontinued the reduction of Father's child support obligation based on his assignment of the majority of the marital debt.” Id. at 509.

[6] On January 28, 2026, the trial court issued an order (the “January 2026 Order”) amending its child support order to reflect the correct amount of parenting time credit. In accordance with the panel's opinion, the trial court explained that its decision to discontinue the reduction of Father's child support was based on “multiple, substantial and continuous changes” that occurred since that reduction was implemented, Appellant's App. Vol. II at 67. Those changes included the following:

(1) Father's child support obligation was further reduced in 2017 based on the birth of his subsequent child;

(2) Mother had a subsequent child;

(3) Mother's and Father's incomes had both increased;

(4) Parents’ oldest child was in college;

(5) Father “receives an additional $2,153.93 per month for his Veteran's disability payments which the Court did not apply to his child support but which could be used to reduce the marital debt”; id. at 68 (emphasis added);

(6) Father “testified that [Mother's] spouse [(“Stepfather”)] also receives Veteran's benefits, but offered no evidence regarding an amount,” id.; and

(7) Father had paid off “all the marital debts assigned to him but still owes most of the student loans.” Id. Father's “Veteran's benefits would fully service the student loan,” but Father “has the loan in forbearance with minimal payments being made to reduce the debt, and increasing said debt.” Id.

In the accompanying child support obligation worksheet, the trial court determined Father's weekly gross income was $1,769.99.

[7] On February 6, Father filed a motion to correct error. Father argued that the trial court incorrectly claimed (1) it had not included Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income determination because that amount was in fact included in the $1,769.99 weekly gross income amount the trial court determined; and (2) Father did not present evidence regarding the amount of Stepfather's veterans benefits.

[8] On February 11, the trial court issued an order granting Father's motion to correct error, and it revised Father's weekly gross income to $1,272.93, apparently by excluding his veterans disability benefits,¹ which reduced Father's child support. On February 27, Mother filed a motion to correct error. Mother acknowledged that “[t]he Court erroneously added as a basis for not continuing the discount that the Court had not considered Father's VA Disability Income for child support purposes.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 96. Mother, however, argued that the trial court's reduction of Father's weekly gross income was improper. The trial court denied Mother's motion to correct error. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Erred by Excluding Father's Veterans Disability Benefits from His Weekly Gross Income Determination

[9] Mother argues that the trial court erred when modifying child support by excluding Father's veterans disability benefits from his weekly gross income. A trial court's calculation of child support “is presumptively valid.” DeGrado v. DeGrado, 243 N.E.3d 381, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 738 (Ind. 2015)). When reviewing the modification of child support, “only evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment are considered.” Id. (quoting Bogner, 29 N.E.3d at 738). The trial court's order will be set aside only if it is “clearly erroneous.” Id. (citing Bogner, 29 N.E.3d at 738). “ ‘Clear error’ is error that ‘leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ” Id. (quoting Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570, 575 (Ind. 2015)). When, however, the issue presented is a “pure question of law and there are no disputed facts, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Anderson v. Anderson, 955 N.E.2d 236, 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Reese v. Reese, 696 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)).

[10] Mother, citing the Child Support Guidelines, argues that “[v]eteran's benefits must be included in calculating weekly gross income.” Appellant's Br. at 8–9 (citing In Re Paternity of W.M.T., 180 N.E.3d 290, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied; Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A), cmt.). Weekly gross income is the “starting point” when determining a parent's child support obligation. DeGrado, 243 N.E.3d at 387 (quoting Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942, 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (opinion on reh'g)). The Child Support Guidelines broadly define “weekly gross income” as income “from any source” not excluded by the Child Support Guidelines. Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A)(1). The only sources the Child Support Guidelines specifically exclude from weekly gross income are “benefits from means tested public assistance programs” and “survivor benefits received by or for other children residing in either parent's home.” Id.

[11] In In re Paternity of C.L.H., this court held that the father's veterans disability benefit was “in the nature of a ‘disability insurance benefit,’ which the [child support] guidelines explicitly include within the definition of ‘gross income,’ and d[id] not appear to be a benefit from a ‘means-tested public assistance’ program which would be excluded from the definition.” 689 N.E.2d 456, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Additionally, the commentary to Child Support Guideline 3(A) provides that “government payments, such as Social Security benefits and veterans pensions/retired pay, should be included” when calculating weekly gross income. Father does not contest that “veteran disability benefits are included in determining weekly gross income for child support purposes.” Appellee's Br. at 6 (citing C.L.H., 689 N.E.2d at 458). We thus agree with Mother that the trial court should have included Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income.

[12] The trial court appears to have decided not to include Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income because it had listed that as a reason for discontinuing the reduction of Father's child support. In the January 2026 Order, the trial court explained that it discontinued the reduction based, in part, on the fact that the court “did not apply” Father's veterans disability benefits “to his child support.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 68. Father then pointed out that the trial court had in fact included this amount in his weekly gross income, and the trial court thereafter revised Father's weekly gross income so as to exclude it.

[13] This practice is not permitted. Child Support Rule 3 permits trial courts to deviate from the “award reached through application of the guidelines”—a parent's child support obligation—if the court determines the award would be unjust. Ind. Child Support Rule 3. However, the Child Support Rules do not permit “deviating from the precise method of the Guideline calculation.” Saalfrank v. Saalfrank, 899 N.E.2d 671, 676 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see also Hamiter v. Torrence, 717 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). For example, in Saalfrank, this court explained that instead of “chang[ing] the calculation” of the mother's weekly gross income “by not using the multiplier” that reduces weekly gross income based on subsequently born children,² the trial court should have “perform[ed] the calculation as specified” by the Child Support Guidelines “and then consider[ed] deviation.” 899 N.E.2d at 676.

[14] By deciding not to include Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income, the trial court impermissibly deviated from the prescribed method of calculating child support. The trial court clearly erred by modifying Father's child support because it did not employ the correct weekly gross income amount.³ We therefore reverse the child support modification and remand for proper recalculation.⁴

Conclusion

[15] In sum, the trial court clearly erred when modifying child support because it should have included Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income. We remand for proper recalculation of Father's child support.

[16] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The difference between the previous weekly gross income amount ($1,769.99) and the revised one ($1,272.93) is $497.06, which is the amount of Father's weekly veterans disability benefits.

2.   See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3C(1), cmt. 1.

3.   Because we conclude that the trial court clearly erred by not including Father's veterans disability benefits in his weekly gross income, we do not address Mother's argument that the trial court “exceeded the scope of this Court's remand” in doing so. Appellant's Br. at 9.

4.   On remand, we express no opinion as to Father's argument that “both parties’ Veteran's Disability Benefits should be included for support purposes.” Appellee's Br. at 6.

Felix, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bradford. J., concur.