Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JASON A. CHILDERS

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DEBORAH L. FARMER

Hulse Lacey Hardacre Austin & Shine, P.C. Anderson, Indiana

ANNE E. BRANT Campbell Kyle Proffitt, LLP Carmel, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CONNIE WILLIAMSON, Appellant, vs. TIMOTHY WILLIAMSON, Appellee.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A02-0606-CV-491

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Daniel J. Pfleging, Judge Cause No. 29D02-0603-DR-232

March 23, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Connie Williamson appeals the trial court's granting of Timothy Williamson's petition to modify child custody and support. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. Issues Connie raises one issue for our review, which we expand and restate as: I. whether the trial court properly granted Timothy's motion to modify physical custody; and whether the trial court properly modified Connie's child support obligation. Facts Timothy and Connie were married and had four children. The Williamson's eldest child, Andrew Williamson, has been emancipated. Their second child, Brenton The

II.

Williamson, has reached the age of majority and is a student at Indiana University.

youngest two Williamson children--E.W. and G.W.--were born on March 31, 1989 and January 23, 1995, respectively. E.W. is a student at Noblesville High School, and G.W. is in the fifth grade at Noblesville Intermediate School. On April 24, 2001, the trial court entered a decree dissolving Timothy and Connie's marriage. Timothy and Connie agreed to share joint legal custody of their children and that Connie would provide the children's primary residence. On July 26, 2004, the trial court modified the parties' decree and increased Timothy's parenting time so that the children would reside with him every third week.

2

Some time around January 2006, Connie relocated to Anderson and moved into her mother's residence while she made preparations for her upcoming wedding to Wayne Bruzzese and finalized the purchase of their new home. While Connie completed her move to Anderson and waited to move into her new home with Bruzzese, the parties agreed that E.W. and G.W. would remain in Noblesville with Timothy. Shortly

thereafter, on January 6, 2006, Timothy petitioned the trial court to modify custody and child support and requested primary physical custody of E.W. and G.W. and support payments from Connie. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Timothy's petition on March 20, 2006 and granted that petition on May 15, 2006. Connie now appeals. Analysis I. Custody Modification Connie first contends that the trial court erred by granting Timothy's custody modification request and awarding him physical custody of E.W. and G.W. In general, we review custody modification decisions for an abuse of discretion, and grant trial judges latitude and deference in family law matters. Green v. Green, 843 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). When we review a trial court's decision to modify custody, we may not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We only consider the evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. Id. When we review a trial court's findings of fact and conclusions thereon, we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the conclusions. Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We 3

may affirm a judgment based on any legal theory that is supported by the findings. Nunn v. Nunn, 791 N.E.2d 779, 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will reverse a judgment only if it is clearly erroneous--where the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the judgment. Id. It does not appear that either party requested

findings and conclusions. Thus, the trial court's sua sponte findings control only as to the issues they cover, and a general judgment standard controls as to the issues upon which the court has not made findings. Walker v. Elkin, 758 N.E.2d 972, 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The trial court's order as it relates to Timothy's request to modify custody provides: The Court having conducted the In-Camera Interview [with E.W. and G.W.], the Court having reviewed its notes and the testimony in this cause of action, and being duly advised in the premises, now Finds and Orders as follows: ***** 2. There are material changes in circumstances that will be continuing in nature that warrant a modification of physical custody. Those changes include, but are not limited to: A.) [E.W.] is seventeen (17) years of age and will be a senior at Noblesville High School and wishes to remain in the Noblesville School district; In approximately December, 2005, Respondent relocated to Madison County, living in an apartment with her Mother;

B.)

4

C.)

At that time, so that the children could continue their education in the Noblesville School district, the parties made changes in their parenting time with the Father having primary custody; Respondent is re-married and resides in Anderson, Indiana; Both children have friends, extracurricular activities, and in the case of [E.W.], employment in the Noblesville area. The childrens' [sic] grades have improved under the new parenting time arrangement.

D.)

E.)

F.)

3.

Respondent shall have parenting time with the minor children from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 p.m., Sunday of the first, second and fourth weekend of each month. Additional parenting time and holiday and extended time shall be pursuant to the Parenting Time Guidelines or by agreement of the parties.

Appellant's App. pp. 8-9. A court may not modify a child custody order unless the modification is in the best interests of the children and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors set forth in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-8. Ind. Code

Download Connie Williamson v. Timothy Williamson.pdf

Indiana Law