Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAN J. MAY Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHERINE J. NOEL Noel Law Kokomo, Indiana

FILED
Jun 08 2012, 9:27 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TRICIA L. SEXTON, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. TRAVIS SEXTON, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 34A02-1111-DR-01059

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Brant J. Parry, Judge Cause No. 34D02-1105-DR-429

June 8, 2012 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Tricia Sexton ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order finding that her daughter, K.S., was emancipated. Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that K.S. was outside the care or control of her parents and was self-supporting. Because it represents a significant and wide-reaching change in state law, we also address Father's arguments regarding Public Law 111-2012, which will change the presumptive age for termination of child support from twenty-one to nineteen on July 1, 2012. With respect to Mother's claims, we conclude that K.S. indeed put herself outside the care or control of her parents and was self-supporting, and thus the trial court did not err in determining that she was emancipated. As to Father's contentions, we hold that the amended child-support statute does not apply retroactively such that obligors may be reimbursed for past support payments made for children beyond age nineteen. affirm. Facts and Procedural History Mother and Travis Sexton ("Father") were divorced in 2007. Mother was awarded physical custody of the parties' two children--K.S., born September 9, 1991, and Ko.S., born December 10, 1993. Father was ordered to pay $201 per week in child support. While in high school, K.S. obtained her CNA license and began working at Fairmont Nursing Home. K.S. graduated from high school in May 2010 and enrolled in classes at Ivy Tech Community College. Father's support obligation was increased to $240 per week at that time. K.S. worked at Fairmont and attended classes at Ivy Tech during the summer and into the fall. In September 2010, K.S. learned that she was 2 We

pregnant. Two months later, she stopped working. She also stopped attending classes at that time, although she enrolled in classes the following semester. In June 2011, K.S. gave birth to a son. Father filed a motion to emancipate K.S. in March 2011, before K.S. gave birth to her son. The trial court held a hearing on Father's petition in August 2011. At the hearing, Father testified that before becoming pregnant, K.S. was working full-time and taking classes part-time at Ivy Tech; however, she stopped doing both shortly after learning she was pregnant. Tr. p. 13. Father said that since filing the emancipation petition, K.S. refused to see him and informed him that he would no longer have a relationship with her or his grandson. Id. at 21. K.S. testified that she lived with Mother, did not pay rent, and had not worked since she quit her job at Fairmont in November 2010. K.S. said that she received governmental assistance and financial aid, which paid her tuition at Ivy Tech in full. K.S. confirmed that she was in a relationship with her son's father, who worked at FedEx and was a member of the National Guard. K.S. stated that she asked him to provide diapers for their child, "because I don't need anything else . . . ." Id. at 65. Mother also testified and confirmed that K.S. lived with her and did not pay rent. One month later, the trial court entered an order finding K.S. to be emancipated under Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6(b)(3). Mother filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. Mother now appeals.

3

Discussion and Decision Mother contends that the trial court erred when it determined that K.S. was emancipated. Specifically, Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that K.S. was outside the care or control of her parents and was self-supporting. I. Emancipation Indiana places a strong emphasis on the discretion of our trial courts in determining child-support obligations, such as in emancipation determinations. See

Carpenter v. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d 587, 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We will not set aside a trial court's decision to modify child support unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. On appeal, we do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Id.; see also Butrum v. Roman, 803 N.E.2d 1139, 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d at 592. Here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law at the parties' request. As a result, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will set aside the trial court's findings only if they are clearly erroneous--that is, "when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made." Id. (quotation omitted). "Although we defer to a trial court's ability to find the facts, we do not defer to conclusions of law, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard." Id. (quotation omitted).

4

What constitutes emancipation is a question of law, and whether emancipation has occurred is a question of fact. Butrum, 803 N.E.2d at 1143. Emancipation cannot be presumed; rather, the party seeking emancipation must establish it by competent evidence. Id. Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6 governs the termination of child support and emancipation of a child. The purpose of this statute "is to require that parents provide protection and support for the welfare of their children until the children reach the specified age or no longer require such care and support." Id. (quotation omitted). Specifically, Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6 provides: (a) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs: (1) The child is emancipated before becoming twenty-one (21) years of age. In this case the child support, except for the educational needs outlined in section 2(a)(1) of this chapter, terminates at the time of emancipation, although an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court. (2) The child is incapacitated. In this case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court. (3) The child: (A) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; (B) has not attended a secondary or postsecondary school for the prior four (4) months and is not enrolled in a secondary or postsecondary school; and (C) is or is capable of supporting himself or herself through employment. In this case the child support terminates upon the court's finding that the conditions prescribed in this subdivision exist. However, if the court finds that the conditions set forth in clauses (A) through (C) are met but that the child is only partially supporting or is capable of only partially supporting himself or herself, the court may order that support be modified instead of terminated. (b) For purposes of determining if a child is emancipated under subsection (a)(1), if the court finds that the child: 5

(1) has joined the United States armed services; (2) has married; or (3) is not under the care or control of: (A) either parent; or (B) an individual or agency approved by the court; the court shall find the child emancipated and terminate the child support. Ind. Code Ann.

Download Tricia L. Sexton v. Travis Sexton.pdf

Indiana Law