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.

FILED
Dec 20 2011, 10:30 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SHERWOOD P. HILL CLINTON E. BLANCK Maurer Rifkin & Hill, P.C. Carmel, Indiana

CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
S. (M.) O. (Mother), Appellant, vs. S. M., Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A04-1104-DR-203

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Daniel J. Pfleging, Judge The Honorable William P. Greenway, Magistrate Cause No. 29D01-0611-DR-1175

December 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE S.(M.)O. ("Mother") appeals the trial court's judgment ordering S.M. ("Father") to continue to provide health insurance for the parties' children. We affirm. ISSUE Whether the trial court erred in ordering Father to continue to provide health insurance for the parties' children. FACTS Father and Mother were divorced in 2007. The parties' Property Settlement

Agreement and Waiver of Final Hearing provided that Father would pay $225.00 per week in child support for his two children, nine-year-old S.M. and seven-year-old G.M. The Agreement further stated that Father would provide health insurance for the children. Father was granted the right of parenting time consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. In 2010, Father filed a Verified Petition for Modification of Child Support and a Verified Motion for Contempt Regarding Parenting Visitation Order. He later filed a Verified Supplemental Petition to Show Cause and for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem. The trial court held a hearing on the petitions in January 2011. Testimony at the hearing revealed that Father lost his job in August 2010 when his plant closed. He was told that he was being switched to a voluntary leave type of insurance policy and his bills 2

might not get paid quickly. Concerned that his children might not be covered at all during this period, Father asked Mother if she could put the children on her health insurance until he found another job. Mother agreed to do this. In September 2010, Father found a new job making less money than he made at his former job. The children remained on the health insurance from his former job until he started his new job. When Father asked Mother for the children's social security numbers so he could put the children on his new insurance, Mother told Father she could not find the numbers. At the hearing, Mother asked the trial court to modify the dissolution decree and to order her to provide health insurance for the children. Mother explained that the

premium for her health insurance was only $25.00 every two weeks compared to Father's $87.00 premium. Father objected to Mother's request because she did not have a stable employment history. Father wanted to make sure that the children had medical

insurance. Mother's testimony revealed that she worked as a part-time instructor at ITT Technical Institute and IUPUI until her son with her new husband was born in August 2007. While her baby was young, she worked as a part-time instructor at Med Tech College and Brown Mackie College. In September 2009, she went to work full-time at Unique Home Solutions as an Event Manager. In September 2010, she got a job as an online student mentor at Western Governor's University. In February 2011, the trial court issued an order denying Father's Motion for Contempt and granting his Verified Petition for Modification of Child Support. 3

Specifically, the court reduced Father's child support to $156.30 per week and ordered Father to continue to provide health insurance for the children. Mother appeals. DECISION At the outset, we note that Father has failed to file an appellate brief. When an appellee fails to file a brief, we may apply a less stringent standard of review and reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant demonstrates prima face error. Rendon v. Rendon, 692 N.E.2d 889, 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). However, we may also, in our discretion, decide the case on the merits. Id. Due to the nature of the issue involved in this appeal, we exercise such discretion here. See id. The modification of a child support order requires a showing of "changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable." Ind. Code

Download 12201101cld.pdf

Indiana Law