IN RE: the Paternity of B.A. and M.A. (Minor Children) by next of friend (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Claire Howard (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's orders (1) that she pay Billy Albright's (“Father”) attorney fees as sanctions for Mother's contempt of court orders and/or frivolous litigation; and (2) staying all further hearings pending Mother's payment of the attorney fee orders. Mother has waived the merits of her attorney fee claims by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, so we affirm that part of the trial court order. However, because the trial court erred when it conditioned further hearings on Mother's payment of $21,020 in attorney fees, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and Father are the parents of two children born out of wedlock: B.A., born July 7, 2017, and M.A., born November 28, 2018 (collectively, “the Children”). Father executed paternity affidavits when the Children were born, and he and Mother lived together with the Children until approximately February 2020. That August, the State filed a criminal case against Father for domestic violence against Mother, and the criminal court issued a no-contact order prohibiting Father's contact with Mother and the Children.

[3] On February 17, 2021, Father filed this paternity action, and the parties appeared for a May 12 preliminary hearing on the petition.¹ On July 26, the trial court issued a preliminary order in which it established Father's paternity of the Children, granted Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the Children pending a final hearing, granted Father supervised parenting time with the Children, and ordered Father to pay child support. On April 19, 2022, the parties entered into a partial mediated agreed entry, which ordered that Mother had primary physical and sole legal custody of the Children and that Father had unsupervised parenting time that would increase in stages.

[4] On November 17, the trial court held a final hearing on Father's paternity petition, took all issues under advisement, and ordered that Father proceed to “Stage 2 parenting time” as outlined in the parties’ mediated agreement. App. v. 2 at 125. However, Mother did not give Father any parenting time and “absconded with the Children” at some point in November or December 2022. Id. at 126. On November 22, Father filed a petition for contempt for Mother's violation of the custody/parenting time orders,² and the Children's Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) filed a report confirming that Mother had absconded with the Children and their “whereabouts are unknown.” Id. The GAL recommended that Father have emergency custody of the Children and that Mother have supervised parenting time, pending further court order.

[5] On January 12, 2023, the trial court held an emergency hearing on modification of custody, at which Father requested sole temporary custody and sanctions against Mother for her contempt of the parenting time order. The court found that Mother absconding with the Children had endangered them and was a “substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody” to Father and supervised parenting time to Mother. Id. at 126. The court further found that “Mother ha[d] blatantly disregarded this Court's Orders[;]” found her in “indirect contempt” of the parenting time orders; issued a body attachment for Mother; took the matter of “sanctions under advisement until further hearing when Mother presents herself to explain her actions” to the court; and ordered Father's child support “abated until further order of the Court.” Id.

[6] On November 2, the trial court held a final hearing on Father's paternity petition and a contempt hearing. It issued a “final order” on December 19 in which it stated, in pertinent part:

4. Mother has established a pattern of withholding the [C]hildren from Father, and after the hearing on November 17, 2022, she absconded with the [C]hildren and fled the jurisdiction[;] ․

5. A substantial and continuing change in circumstance exists, and it is in the [C]hildren's best interests that Father is awarded permanent sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the Children.

***

7. Mother is a flight risk and poses an immediate danger to the [C]hildren's emotional and psychological well-being, and the Children would be in imminent danger in Mother's care, if her parenting time is not restricted.

Id. at 129-130, 133.

[7] The trial court ordered Mother to obtain services such as a psychological evaluation and an anger management assessment and to “follow and complete all treatment recommendations.” Id. at 130. The court ordered Mother to have supervised parenting time “upon completion of the requirements” that she obtain assessments and follow treatment recommendations. Id. However, the court ordered that Mother's parenting time could not transition to unsupervised until she completed “counseling with the [C]hildren” and the court was “convinced that Mother's conduct will no longer harm the [C]hildren.” Id. at 131.

[8] The court also found Mother to be “in indirect contempt for her willful failure and refusal to follow th[e] Court's orders on parenting time” and took the issue of sanctions against Mother “under advisement until she appears before this Court and the body attachment is lifted.” Id. at 131-32. The court further found that Father had overpaid his child support in the amount of $1,448.34 and ordered Mother to pay him that amount “within 30 days[.]” Id. at 132. Mother was ordered to pay Father child support of $208 per week, effective November 2, 2023, and ordered that Father would claim the Children for tax purposes. But the court “reserved” the issue of Mother's payment of Father's attorney fees “for a sanctions hearing upon execution of Mother's body attachment.” Id. at 133. On February 29, 2024, the Children were finally placed in Father's custody. On March 19, Mother filed a motion to set aside the December 19, 2023, final order.

[9] On June 24, Father filed a contempt petition in which he alleged that Mother had failed to pay child support as ordered and sought sanctions, including attorney fees. The court held a hearing on Father's motion on June 26, at which Mother finally appeared in person and with counsel. The trial court denied Mother's motion to set aside the December 19, 2023, final order. Mother sought a continuance regarding Father's June 24 contempt petition, and the trial court granted the motion and reset the hearing on that issue for October 15. However, the court ordered Mother to pay Father $10,000 in attorney fees as a sanction for the court's December 19, 2023, finding that Mother was in contempt of parenting time orders.

[10] On July 2, 2024, Mother filed a motion to modify custody, parenting time, and child support. The only “substantial change” Mother alleged was that her “income is significantly lower than it was at the time the [December 19, 2023], Order was issued.” Id. at 141. Nevertheless, Mother requested the court set a “full-day hearing” regarding child custody, parenting time, and child support. Id. at 142.³

[11] According to the CCS, on July 29, Mother filed a motion to correct error related to the June 26, 2024, court order, and on July 30, Father filed a “PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND TO ENFORCE CURRENT ORDERS PRIOR TO SCHEDULING MODIFICATION HEARING.” Id. at 31 (emphasis original).

[12] On October 17, Mother filed a document certifying that she had completed an online parenting class with “UpToParents[.com.]” Id. at 159.⁴ Following an October 18 hearing on Father's July 30 petition, the court ordered Father to file an updated attorney fee affidavit “with a full accounting for charges incurred after December 19, 2023,” i.e., the date of the court's final custody, parenting time, and child support orders. Id. at 192. Father did so on October 23.

[13] On October 25, the trial court issued its “Order from October 18th, 2024 Hearing” in which it found in pertinent part:

2. Mother has not reimbursed Father for his [child support] overpayment of $1,448.34 within 30 days per the Court's December 2023 order.

3. Mother has only paid $140.00 in child support since the Court's December 2023 order.

4. Mother claimed the [C]hildren as dependents and for purposes of tax exemptions, in contradiction of the Court's December 2023 order.

5. Mother is self-employed and works about 35 hours per week. Mother did not state any reason why she couldn't work more hours. Mother has no physical or mental disabilities which would prevent her from working a second job or working more hours. Mother does not have minor children in her care. Mother has a certificate in culinary arts and could find additional employment in this field.

6. Mother is found in contempt for her willful failure to comply with this Court's orders as follows: failure to reimburse Father his overpayment of $1,448.34, failure to pay weekly child support in the amount of $208.00 per week, and claiming the [C]hildren as dependents/exemptions on her 2023 tax return.

7. The Court establishes Mother's [child support] arrearage at $11,708.34 as of 10/18/24.

Id. at 212-13. For her contempt of the court's December 2023 order, Mother was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorney fees to Father's attorney. The court took “the issue of attorney fees as a sanction for [Mother's] failure to pay previously ordered [attorney] fees, preliminary attorney fees, and the request for [Mother's] incarceration under advisement[,] pending [a] ruling on [Mother's] Motion to Correct Error.” Id. at 213.

[14] The trial court noted that Mother's pending petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support contained “no specific assertions” of a substantial change in circumstances since the December 19, 2023, final order and no evidence that Mother had complied with the orders that she complete various services, including psychological and anger management assessments and treatments. Id. Therefore, the court declined to set Mother's petition to modify for a hearing until Mother had substantially complied with the December 19, 2023, final order.

[15] In February 2025, Mother filed documents indicating that she had completed a psychological evaluation and an anger management assessment. The psychological evaluation recommended “Trauma Therapy” for Mother, and the anger management assessment contained no treatment recommendations. Id. at 182. Mother subsequently filed a motion for a hearing on the appointment of a supervised parenting time provider for her, and Father objected on the ground that Mother had not provided proof that she had complied with all treatment recommendations as ordered by the court. The court-appointed parenting time coordinator recommended supervised phone calls for Mother, and the trial court ordered the same.

[16] Following several more months of litigation between the parties regarding supervised parenting time and related matters, on October 28, Father filed a motion for assessment of attorney fees related to Mother's non-payment of child support, Mother's last-minute cancellation of his deposition, and Mother's dismissal of her motion to correct error immediately before the scheduled hearing on the motion. Father “also requested a preliminary award of fees related to Mother's July 2024 Petition to Modify.” Appealed Order at 2.

[17] On December 17, 2025, the court conducted a “hearing on a ‘progressive review’ of Mother's supervised virtual visits and next steps, attorney fees as previously pled by Father, and sanction[s] as previously pled by Father.” Id. at 1. In an order dated March 2, 2026, the court found, in relevant part, as follows:

9. As an initial summary observation, it is apparent to the Court that Mother makes payments for those expenses which “serve” her and fails to pay for those that don't. As example, Mother has paid for her psychological evaluation, the focused assessment, supervised virtual visits, the parenting coordinator and her own attorney fees. However, Mother has never paid the ordered weekly amount of child support and she has never paid the monthly ordered amount of attorney fees to [Father's attorney].

10. Mother did make two lump sum payments of approximately $10,000 each in September 2025 towards child support, as the December hearing was approaching. Mother was able to make these payments from a $70,000.00 settlement she received. Mother did not use these funds to pay her past due attorney fees owed to [Father's attorney]. After the payment of child support, Mother presumably would have had the balance of $50,000.00 remaining from these funds.

11. Mother was unable to articulate her exact income at the hearing, but it appears to be around $30,000 - $40,000.00.

12. Mother testified she has received monetary assistance from her family and significant other. Mother's landlord of her residence is her mother.

13. The Court questions Mother's credibility related to her income and expenses, as it seems unbelievable that Mother can afford her monthly expenses on her income, her settlement funds notwithstanding. Either Mother has additional income or doesn't actually incur the expenses she testified to, or both, or she minimized the amount of financial help she is receiving from other people.

14. Mother has the ability to work more than forty hours given she has no minor children in her care.

15. Mother has the capability to pay attorney fees and child support, just as she has the capability of paying all of her other expenses related to this matter.

Id. at 2-3. The court also noted it is “undisputed” that Mother still owes $7,000 in Father's attorney fees from the first attorney fee order. Id. at 4.

[18] The trial court concluded that Mother's July 2024 petition to modify custody, parenting time, and child support “borders on the frivolous[,]” as Mother had only recently begun to transition to in-person, supervised parenting time. Id. at 5. After considering “both parties’ economic situations, along with all of the circumstances of this matter, the Court f[ound] that a preliminary award of attorney fees [to Father and against Mother] in the amount of $15,000.00 is reasonable.” Id. Further, the court awarded “attorney fees to Father and against Mother in the amount of $6,020.00 for sanctions related to non-payment of support ($755.00), the [last-minute] cancellation of Father's deposition ($1,450.00) and the [last-minute] dismissal of the motion to correct error ($3,815.00).” Id. at 5-6.

[19] Finally, the court ordered that it

will not be setting any further hearings in this matter until the preliminary award of fees ha[s] been paid, the past due attorney fees have been paid (as the latter award should have been paid off under the [June 26, 2024] order), and the sanctions fee award ha[s] been paid. Additionally, Mother shall pay at least 75% of her child support on a monthly basis.

Id. at 6. Mother now appeals that order.

Discussion and Decision

Attorney Fees

[20] Mother challenges the trial court's March 2, 2026, order that she pay Father's attorney fees as sanctions for her frivolous petition to modify custody and parenting time and her last-minute cancellation of a deposition and withdrawal of motion to correct error. We review a trial court's award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. G.G.B.W. v. S.W., 80 N.E.3d 264, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Id. (citing DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Brown, 29 N.E.3d 729, 731-32 (Ind. 2015)).

[21] In addition, we note that Father has failed to file an Appellee's brief in this appeal. Under such circumstances, this court

need not develop an argument for the appellee[ ] but instead will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error. Prima facie error in this context means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.

Salyer v. Wash. Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 141 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2020) (quotations and citations omitted).

[22] However, Mother has waived her claims regarding attorney fees by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. An appellant's appendix “shall contain” certain things, including “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk's Record in chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal.” Ind. Appellate Rule 50(A)(2)(f). More specifically, “when the ruling on a written motion is appealed, a copy of the motion is necessary to resolving the appeal and should therefore be included in the Appendix.” In re Marriage of Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363, 365 n.2 (Ind. 2015). “It is the appellant's duty to present an adequate record on appeal, and when the appellant fails to do so, he is deemed to have waived any alleged error based upon the missing material.” Cook v. Beeman, 150 N.E.3d 643, 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citation modified).

[23] Here, Mother appeals the trial court's orders granting Father's motions for attorney fees, yet she does not include any of those motions in the record on appeal.⁵ That is, the basis for the appealed order is Father's November 2022, June 2024, July 2024, and October 2025 motions for assessments of fees as sanctions for Mother's failure to comply with court orders and/or engaging in frivolous and/or vexatious litigation, but none of those documents are included in the appendices or exhibit volumes on appeal.⁶ While they are, nevertheless, part of the Record, see App. R. 27, and presumably could be accessed by this Court via the Odyssey case management system, we note that this paternity action has continued for over five years with litigious parties and voluminous filings. We will not comb through five-plus years of documentation in the trial court in search of relevant documents that neither party could be bothered to file on appeal. See, e.g., In re Estate of Blair, 177 N.E.3d 84, 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (“We will not, on review, sift through the record to find a basis for a party's argument, lest we become an advocate for a party rather than an adjudicator.”) (citation modified).

[24] Mother's failure to provide an adequate record on appeal has substantially impeded our review of the issue of attorney fees; therefore, Mother has waived that issue.

Suspension of Hearings Pending Payment of Attorney Fees

[25] The trial court ordered Mother to pay fixed sums in attorney fees as sanctions for her non-compliance with court orders and her frivolous and/or vexatious litigation. The court further ordered that it would “not be setting any further hearings in this matter until the preliminary award of fees ha[s] been paid, the past due attorney fees have been paid (as the latter award should have been paid off under Judge Sheward's order), and the sanctions fee award ha[s] been paid.” Appealed Order at 6. On appeal, Mother purports to challenge the suspension of proceedings pending her payment of attorney fees, but she provides no citation to relevant legal authority and makes no cogent argument in support of that challenge.

[26] Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that “[e]ach contention [in the argument section] be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal.” When an appellant provides no citation to legal authority supporting his contentions, those contentions are waived. E.g., Shields v. Town of Perrysville, 136 N.E.3d 309, 312 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Thus, under our Appellate Rules, “[i]t is not sufficient for the argument section that an appellant simply recites facts and makes conclusory statements without analysis or authoritative support.” Kishpaugh v. Odegard, 17 N.E.3d 363, 373 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Therefore, Mother has waived her challenge to the suspension of all hearings pending her payment of specific sums in attorney fees.

[27] However, “whenever possible, we prefer to resolve cases on the merits instead of on procedural grounds like waiver.” Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, “unless we find a party's non-compliance with the rule sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised, we will address the merits of his claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, this Court has “discretion to address the merits of a party's constitutional claim notwithstanding waiver.” Plank v. Cmty. Hosp. of Ind., Inc., 981 N.E.2d 49, 53 (Ind. 2013). As the court's order suspending “any further hearings” in the paternity action implicates Mother's constitutional rights to access to the courts and due process, we choose to address the merits of her challenge despite her waiver. See Ind. Const., Art. 1, § 12.

[28] Mother is correct that there is no Indiana case law directly addressing a court's refusal to hold further hearings in an action until a party pays an attorney fee sanction. However, we find N.R. v. A.R., 273 N.E.3d 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied, to be instructive. There, a trial court had conditioned a contemnor's purge of contempt—specifically, release from jail—on the payment of $5,000 of the opposing party's attorney fees. Another panel of this Court reversed, holding that “a trial court may not use its contempt powers to enforce a money judgment requiring one party to pay the other party a fixed sum of money,” and that “[s]uch money judgments include those for attorney fees.” Id. at 1130 (emphasis in original). Rather, the proper route is for the trial court to issue a money judgment subject to collection proceedings under Trial Rule 69. Id.; see also Cowart v. White, 711 N.E.2d 523, 531 (Ind. 1999) (holding all forms of contempt are generally unavailable to enforce an obligation to pay money because parties may enforce such obligations through execution as provided in Trial Rule 69). Therefore, we reverse the trial court's contempt order requiring Mother to pay a total of $21,020 in Father's attorney fees as a condition for conducting further hearings in this matter, and we remand with instructions to remove that condition from the order.⁷

Conclusion

[29] Mother has waived her challenge to the merits of the attorney fee awards by failing to provide an adequate record that would allow our review of her claim; therefore, we affirm that part of the trial court's order. However, the trial court erred when it suspended all further hearings in the paternity action until Mother pays the ordered attorney fees; therefore, we reverse that part of its order.

[30] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On April 29, the criminal court had issued an order “deferring all custody and parenting time decisions to” the trial court in the paternity action. App. v. 2 at 73.

2.   Mother failed to provide a copy of Father's November 22 contempt petition and many other relevant documents in her appendix on appeal.

3.   Mother also sought a change of judge, which was granted. A special judge was assigned on July 9.

4.   The trial court subsequently noted that the parenting class was inadequate because it must be completed in person, not online.

5.   Mother's Exhibit volumes contain financial documents, apparently in support of her claim on appeal that the attorney fee awards are erroneous because Father is in a better financial position to pay those fees than Mother is. However, the appealed order is not based on the parties’ relative financial positions, but on Mother's alleged frivolous and/or vexatious litigation and sanctions therefor, and Mother has failed to provide record documents relevant to that decision.

6.   Mother has also failed to include her July 29, 2024, motion to correct error, which appears from the Appealed Order to have been part of the vexatious litigation for which Father sought fees. See Appealed Order at 5-6.

7.   Of course, this does not affect the validity of the trial court's attorney fees order. On remand, the trial court may “enter a money judgment for those fees pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 69, which Father may then enforce through appropriate collection proceedings.” N.R., 273 N.E.3d at 1130.

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.