Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Bryan Lee Ciyou Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Roger A. Young Young & Young Franklin, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE/INTERVENOR
Melanie K. Reichert Broyles Kight & Ricafort, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 49S02-0602-JV-69

JASON EDWARD FUCHS, v. MEGAN MARTIN, and CHERYL MARTIN,

Appellant (Petitioner below),

Appellee (Respondent below). Appellee (Intervenor below).

_________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D04-0008-JP-1263 The Honorable Cynthia Ayers, Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0411-JV-936 _________________________________ April 20, 2006 Dickson, Justice.

We granted transfer in this paternity case to address the power of a trial court to order mediation (a) in a manner not explicitly authorized by local court rules and (b) as a prerequisite to filing motions or otherwise seeking judicial action following the commencement of a case.

This is an appeal from the final judgment in a paternity case that was brought by the father, petitioner-appellant Jason Edward Fuchs. The trial court's detailed judgment established

paternity as agreed by the parties, declared that the parties shall have joint legal custody, and assigned "primary legal and physical custody" to the mother, respondent-appellee Megan Martin. Appellant's App'x. at 31. It also delineated parenting time arrangements; required support and health insurance to be provided by the father; and prescribed specific division of "[e]xtra curricular and activity expenses," uninsured medical expenses, and attorney fees as between the mother and father. Id. at 32-33. The judgment ordered the mother and father to attend a specific "highconflict resolution co-parenting program" and also to participate in a specific family counseling program with their child. Finally, with regard to any further disputes, the order provided: The parties are first to attempt to settle any further disputes concerning [their child] themselves. If they fail to agree, then the parties are ordered to submit future conflicts and parenting disputes to mediation with either Susan Macey or David Rimstidt at Van Winkle Baten & Rimstidt Dispute Resolution. . . . The parties are to pay for mediation fees and costs at the rate of 69% for Father and 31% for Mother. The parties are not to return to court for adjudication of any dispute without first submitting the same to mediation. Id. at 33.

The father appealed, challenging the trial court's judgment as to custody, parenting time credit, and mandatory mediation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's custody decision, ordered a modification of the parenting time credit calculation, and reversed the mandatory mediation provision. Fuchs v. Martin, 836 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We granted transfer and now summarily affirm the Court of Appeals as to custody and parenting time credit. Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

With respect to the mandatory mediation provision, there are three issues: (1) whether a court order, or a local court rule, may require mediation as a precondition to court hearings; (2) whether mediation may be required as a precondition for the filing of post-decree proceedings; and (3) whether a trial court must be authorized by local rules before ordering mediation. 1

Mediation as Prerequisite to Hearings

The father does not challenge, nor do we address, whether the trial court erred in its designation of two named mediators in the event the parties are unable to otherwise agree. We note, however, that the designation and selection of mediators is governed by Indiana Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.4.

1

2

The father urges that any requirement for mandatory mediation, as a prerequisite to court hearings, whether by court order or local rule, is an improper restriction upon litigants' access to courts. He also makes a general claim that such a requirement violates Article 1, Section 12, of the Indiana Constitution. 2

Indiana judicial policy favors the effective use of mediation. Indiana Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.2 authorizes a court "on its own motion" to refer a civil or domestic relations case to mediation and establishes a procedure for consideration of any objection thereto. Section I(E)(2) of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines explicitly declares: "If court action is initiated, the parents shall enter into mediation unless otherwise ordered by the court." The best interests of Indiana citizens and sound judicial administration are well-served when trial courts fully utilize and promote the use of mediation, which can be an enormously effective tool to facilitate the amicable resolution of disputes, to enable parties to meaningfully participate in crafting solutions that best serve their respective interests, to reduce points of contention that would otherwise require a court hearing, to minimize the destructive polarization that can accompany contested adversarial proceedings, to resolve disputes often more expeditiously and less expensively than by protracted litigation and trial proceedings, to equip parties with dispute resolution skills, and to relieve crowded trial dockets thus enabling courts to provide necessary trials more promptly. When a dispute is referred for mediation, the parties are required to mediate in good faith, but they are not compelled to reach an agreement. A.D.R. 2.1. Not surprisingly, it has become commonplace for Indiana trial courts to require parties to engage in mediation before proceeding to contested final hearings.

Such a requirement is not an impediment to a party's access to courts. Rather, it is an appropriate procedural step consistent with the efficient judicial administration of the party's case. An order to mediate is not unlike the requirements imposed by our rules governing discovery and other pre-trial procedure. Such obligations, while prerequisites for eligibility for final hearings, merely facilitate the fair resolution of disputes. They do not prevent a party from obtaining a ju2

Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution provides: All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.

3

dicial resolution of a case nor obstruct a party's access to the courts. The father has not demonstrated any violation of Article 1, Section 12, of the Indiana Constitution.

We hold that trial courts and local court rules may require parties to engage in mediation as a prerequisite to contested court trials or hearings.

Mediation as Prerequisite to Filing Post-Judgment Requests

The Court of Appeals viewed the trial court's prospective mediation order as suggesting that the parties "are prohibited from filing any matters in the trial court prior to engaging in mediation." Fuchs, 836 N.E.2d at 1059. The pertinent actual language in the judgment was: "The parties are not to return to court for adjudication of any dispute without first submitting the same to mediation." Appellant's App'x at 33. If the phrase "return to court for adjudication" is construed to mean final adjudication, the requirement is clearly appropriate, as discussed above. But, if understood to require mediation of any post-judgment dispute as a prerequisite to filing a request for post-judgment proceedings, the nature of the restraint imposed by the order would be somewhat altered.

We observe that courts are authorized to refer cases to mediation only after the expiration of fifteen days "after the period allowed for peremptory change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B)." A.D.R. 2.2. And mediation of parenting time issues is mandated only "[i]f court action is initiated." Parenting Time Guidelines

Download Jason Edward Fuchs v. Megan & Cheryl Martin.pdf

Indiana Law