Jonathan M. Pratt, Appellant-Petitioner v. Jamie L. Pratt, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jonathan M. Pratt (Father) and Jamie L. Pratt (Mother) (collectively, Parents) dissolved their marriage in 2020. In 2025, Father moved for an order requiring Mother to contribute to the college expenses of their son (Child). Following a hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that Child had repudiated his relationship with Mother. Father now appeals, claiming the court's repudiation finding is erroneous. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Parents were married in 2006, and Child was born on January 18, 2007. Parents’ marriage was dissolved in November 2020. Initially, Parents shared joint physical and legal custody of Child. In July 2021, Father and fourteen-year-old Child relocated to Georgia, while Mother remained in Indiana. The court then modified custody, awarding Father sole custody and granting Mother parenting time “pursuant to the agreement of the parties[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 30. Thereafter, Mother did not exercise any parenting time.

[3] Child turned eighteen on January 18, 2025. The following month, Father filed a petition asserting Child would graduate from high school in May and requesting Mother be ordered to contribute to Child's college expenses. A hearing on this motion was held in July. Both Mother and Child testified that they had not seen or spoken to each other since 2021. Child further testified that he had not received any other contact from Mother since that time. In contrast, Mother testified she had texted Child repeatedly since 2021, including on his eighteenth birthday, but never received a response. Photos of these text messages were admitted, showing approximately twenty-five messages sent by Mother between 2021 and 2025.

[4] In May 2026, the court issued its final order finding that Mother had established Child's repudiation of the relationship and was therefore not obligated to pay college expenses. Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Father challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for Mother to contribute to Child's college expenses. We review a trial court's denial of contribution for college expenses for an abuse of discretion. Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In addition, when a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1150. When engaging in this review, we consider only evidence that supports the trial court's judgment, we do not reweigh the evidence, and we do not reassess the credibility of witnesses. Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). It is the appellant's burden to establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1150. “Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made.” Id.

[6] In Indiana, “there is no absolute legal duty on the part of parents to provide a college education for their children.” McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). However, a court may enter an educational support order for a child's education at a postsecondary educational institution. Ind. Code § 31-16-6-2(a)(1) (2007). “Repudiation of a parent by the child, however, is recognized as a complete defense to such an order.” Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1150. Repudiation is defined as a child's complete refusal to participate in a relationship with his parent. Messner v. Messner, 118 N.E.3d 64, 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The focus is on the child's behavior as an adult. Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1150. This is because:

By college age, children of divorced parents must be expected to begin to come to terms with the reality of their family's situation. They must begin to realize that their attitudes and actions are their individual responsibilities.

Whatever their biases and resentments, while one can understand how they got that way, when they become adults it is no longer appropriate to allow them to stay that way without consequence.

McKay, 644 N.E.2d at 167 (quotation omitted). We will affirm a trial court's decision regarding repudiation as long as there is evidence in the record that supports it. Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1151.

[7] Father argues the court erred in determining Child repudiated his relationship with Mother. Specifically, Father first contends the trial court erroneously considered, as evidence of repudiation, Child's failure to respond to text messages Mother sent while he was a minor. We disagree.

[8] “[O]ur case law clearly establishes that a child can only repudiate a relationship with his or her parents as an adult, over the age of eighteen[.]” Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see also McKay, 644 N.E.2d at 167 (noting repudiation case law is “limit[ed] ․ to adult children”). “However, the trial court may consider a child's actions which occurred before that age if the conduct continued after the child reached the age of eighteen.” Messner, 118 N.E.3d at 68.

[9] Here, the trial court found:

[Father] also makes an issue out of the fact that all texts but one occurred prior to [Child's] eighteenth birthday. While the court will tend to believe that a fourteen year old child ignoring his mother may be done at the influence of his father, not responding to your mother's birthday wishes, or providing your mother with updated contact information when you turn eighteen, is an adult decision and a clear repudiation of that parent.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 23. While this finding notes Child's failure to respond to Mother as a minor, it is clear the court based its repudiation determination on Child's continuation of this behavior after turning eighteen. Thus, the trial court properly focused on Child's behavior as an adult, and Father has failed to show the court erred in this regard. See Cunningham v. Barton, 139 N.E.3d 1081, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (no error in trial court repudiation decision where it entered findings regarding children's behavior as minors because the order also indicated “the trial court correctly focused on [the children's] actions after they reached adulthood”).

[10] Father next argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Child repudiated his relationship with Mother. But the record indicates that at the time of the hearing, Mother and Child had not seen or spoken to each other for approximately four years. And although Mother had repeatedly reached out to Child in those four years, Child did not respond to her. This behavior continued after Child turned eighteen. Given this evidence and because we will affirm a trial court's decision regarding repudiation as long as there is evidence to support it, we cannot say the court's determination is clearly erroneous. See Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1151.

[11] Finally, Father argues the trial court “ignored” evidence favorable to his position, including that Mother did not contact Child in other ways—such as sending cards or presents—and that Child testified he had not been contacted by Mother since 2021. Appellant's Br. p. 13. But Mother testified she texted Child repeatedly between 2021 and 2025, including once on his eighteenth birthday, and photos of these messages were admitted at the hearing.¹ It was within the trial court's discretion to credit this evidence over Child's testimony. Father's arguments are an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we do not do.

[12] The trial court did not err in finding Child repudiated his relationship with Mother and thus denying Father's request for contribution from Mother toward Child's college expenses. We affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father also challenges the admissibility of the text messages, arguing they were “unauthenticated records without any independent foundation.” Appellant's Br. p. 21. However, at the hearing, he objected to the admission of these text messages “only as to relevance[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 23. Following the hearing but before the court issued its ruling, Father filed a “Renewed Objection” to the text messages, arguing lack of foundation. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 33. But he did not make a contemporaneous objection at the hearing on this basis. To preserve an appellate argument challenging the admission of evidence, a party must have made a contemporaneous objection at the trial or hearing, and the failure to object will result in waiver of any alleged error. Reed v. Bethel, 2 N.E.3d 98, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Further, it is well established that a party may not object on one ground in the trial court and then seek reversal on appeal using a different ground. Id. Given that Father failed to make a contemporaneous objection at the hearing on this ground, this argument is waived for our review.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.