Justin Howard Suedmeyer v. Julie Louise Suedmeyer (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 17 2018, 7:51 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Adam J. Farrar Thomas A. Massey
Mt. Vernon, Indiana Evansville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Justin Howard Suedmeyer, May 17, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
65A01-1711-DR-2789
v. Appeal from the Posey Circuit
Court
Julie Louise Suedmeyer, The Honorable James M.
Appellee-Plaintiff Redwine, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
65C01-1510-DR-362
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Justin H. Suedmeyer (Father) and Julie L. Suedmeyer (now Maddix) (Mother)
were previously married and have one child, L.S., in common. In January
2016, the parties entered into a mediated agreed final decree of dissolution of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 1 of 5
marriage (the Agreed Decree), which the trial court accepted. The Agreed
Decree granted Mother legal and physical custody of L.S. and Father parenting
time in excess of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (the Guidelines).
Thereafter, in July 2017, Mother filed a petition seeking, among other things,
modification of Father’s parenting time. Following a hearing, the trial court
modified Father’s parenting time, reducing it to that provided by the
Guidelines. Father now appeals.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] L.S. was born in December 2011, during Mother and Father’s marriage.
Mother and Father separated in September 2015, and their marriage was
dissolved on January 20, 2016, just after L.S. turned four years old.
[4] The Agreed Decree granted Mother legal and physical custody of L.S. With
respect to parenting time, the Agreed Decree provided in relevant part:
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing (including text
and e-mail), [Father] shall have parenting time with the child
during the school year on alternating weekends commencing on
Friday after school at an agreeable time and continuing [to]
Monday morning. Also, on Wednesdays overnight and on the
off-week (the week following [Father’s] weekend parenting time),
on Thursdays overnight as well. This results in [Father] having
six (6) overnights and [Mother] having eight (8) overnights out of
each two (2) week period.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the parties shall
follow the [Guidelines] for Holidays, special occasions and
Summer parenting time, with the parties agreeing to a week-
on/week-off schedule such that [Mother] will have
approximately the week before school starts.
Appendix Vol. 2 at 12. The parties followed this parenting-time schedule for
about a year and a half while L.S. attended preschool.
[5] On June 2, 2017, Mother filed a petition for modification, which was amended
the following month. In relevant part, Mother sought a reduction in Father’s
parenting time during the school year because L.S. was about to start
kindergarten. The parties failed to resolve the matter at mediation, so the trial
court held a hearing on August 29, 2017.
[6] Mother and Father both testified at the evidentiary hearing. Mother proposed
changing Father’s parenting time during the school year to every Tuesday from
4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and alternating weekends from Friday afternoon through
Sunday at 6:00 p.m., which is equivalent to the Guidelines. In Mother’s
opinion, this change was in L.S.’s best interests because “[L.S.] needs a stable
consistent routine, and it is in her best interest to spend her overnights when she
is in school at [Mother’s] house.” Transcript at 11. Mother also noted Father’s
pattern of lying to her, including about where and with whom he was living.
She also presented an exhibit indicating that Father had lived at five different
addresses in Evansville since the Agreed Decree. Mother, on the other hand,
still lived in the marital residence in Mount Vernon. Mother testified that she
was not trying to punish Father and explained: “I am here because I believe it is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5
in the best interest of [L.S.] to have stability, stable routine with her beginning
school. Education is very important to me and I want her to have the best start
in her educational life.” Id. at 17. L.S. started full-day kindergarten in August
2017.
[7] During his brief testimony, Father acknowledged lying to Mother and that he
had made mistakes but argued that he was not a “bad dad.” Id. at 22. Father
also questioned Mother’s motives for seeking the modification.
[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted Mother’s petition with
respect to parenting time. The court noted, “with [L.S.] starting school, it really
does work out better to follow the guidelines.” Id. at 26. Given the change in
parenting time, the trial court also issued a new support order, with Father
paying $35 per week in child support. Father filed an unsuccessful motion to
correct error and now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[9] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion “in ordering the
modification of the existing custody order.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. The trial
court, however, did not modify custody. It modified parenting time. See Moell
v. Moell, 84 N.E.3d 741, 744 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (addressing the differences
between modification of custody and modification of parenting time).
[10] Our standard of review in cases involving a modification of parenting time is
well-settled. On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5
credibility. Id. at 745. We grant latitude and deference to the trial court and
will reverse only upon a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Id. No abuse
will be found if there is a rational basis in the record supporting the trial court’s
determination. Id. “[I]it is not enough that the evidence might support some
other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by
appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Id. (quoting Duncan v. Duncan,
843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied).
[11] “[P]arenting time may be modified ‘whenever modification would serve the
best interests of the child.’” Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104, 111 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2). The evidence favorable to the
judgment is that Father has experienced significant impermanence in housing
since the Agreed Decree and had not always been honest with Mother
regarding where he was living and, more importantly, where L.S. was staying
while in his care. Moreover, Mother opined that with L.S. starting full-time
kindergarten, it was in L.S.’s best interests to have stability and a consistent
routine on school nights. This evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion
that modifying Father’s parenting time is in L.S.’s best interests.
[12] Judgment affirmed.
[13] Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1711-DR-2789 | May 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5