Elizabeth Marshall v. Sean Marshall II (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FILED
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                              Nov 28 2016, 10:57 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                               CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    court except for the purpose of establishing                           Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    Lori B. Schmeltzer                                      Timothy R. Stoesz
    Schmeltzer Law PLLC                                     Stoesz & Stoesz
    Traverse City, Michigan                                 Westfield, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Elizabeth Marshall,                                     November 28, 2016
    Appellant-Petitioner,                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
    29A05-1604-DR-769
    v.                                              Appeal from the Hamilton
    Superior Court
    Sean Marshall II,                                       The Honorable Daniel J. Pfleging,
    Appellee-Respondent.                                    Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    29D02-1410-DR-10058
    Najam, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016     Page 1 of 18
    Statement of the Case
    [1]   Elizabeth Marshall (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s grant of custody of J.M.
    (“Child”) to Sean Marshall II (“Father”). She raises the following four issues
    on appeal:
    1.      Whether the trial court erred when it quashed Mother’s
    motion to compel discovery of Father’s mental health
    records.
    2.      Whether the trial court erred when it failed to issue
    findings regarding Child’s best interests.
    3.      Whether the trial court erred when it failed to consider the
    Indiana relocation statutes in its custody determination.
    4.      Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
    calculated Mother’s child support obligation.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   Mother and Father were married on April 3, 2010. They have one minor child
    together, J.M. (“Child”), born November 2, 2012. Mother also has two older
    children from a previous relationship, D., age eight, and H., age seven. During
    the marriage, Father was in the military and often worked contract jobs
    overseas beginning in December 2010. He returned home periodically for
    month-long vacations. Father resigned his overseas job and began living with
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 2 of 18
    Mother and Child and Child’s siblings in July 2013. Child has lived primarily
    with Mother his entire life, along with his two older siblings.
    [4]   Mother filed for dissolution of marriage on October 17, 2014. On that same
    date, she and Child and his siblings moved out of the former marital residence
    and into a home where Child’s maternal grandmother, maternal great aunt, two
    maternal second cousins, and maternal great uncle also lived. Child lived
    primarily in that home during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings.
    [5]   On October 29, Father filed a notice of intent to relocate to Arizona with Child.
    Father had parenting time with Child in Indiana on November 6 and 7 and
    November 13 and 14. In mid-November, Father moved to Arizona, without
    Child, to live with his parents and his three siblings. On December 11, Father
    filed an emergency petition for holiday parenting time to take place in Arizona
    and an emergency hearing because he believed Mother would deny him
    visitation with Child during the holidays.
    [6]   The trial court set the case for a preliminary hearing in January 2015, but, on its
    own motion, rescheduled the hearing for March 12. On March 12, Father filed
    a cross petition for dissolution of marriage in which he sought sole physical
    custody and joint legal custody of Child. The trial court began the preliminary
    hearing on March 12 but recessed before the parties completed their
    presentation of evidence. Father had parenting time with Child in Indiana from
    February 27, 2015, to March 1 and on March 12 and 13. On March 20, Mother
    filed an objection to Father’s proposed relocation with Child. Father filed a
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 3 of 18
    motion to strike Mother’s objection as untimely, and the trial court granted
    Father’s motion on April 1.
    [7]   On July 8, Mother filed a motion for an order compelling discovery in which
    she requested the court to order Father to sign an authorization to release all of
    Father’s Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”) medical records.1 On that same date Mother
    also filed a notice of intention to serve a request for production of documents to
    a nonparty, i.e., the VA. On July 14, Father filed an objection to the motion to
    compel discovery and a motion to quash the discovery request to the non-party.
    [8]   On August 20, the trial court held a hearing on the motions related to
    discovery. During the hearing, the court noted that Mother must follow the
    procedures outlined in Title 16 of the Indiana Code regarding the release of
    mental health records. Because Mother did not follow those procedures, the
    court granted the motion to quash and instructed the parties that they could
    proceed pursuant to Title 16 and/or through an agreement regarding the release
    of Father’s mental health records, to be approved by the court. Tr. at 12-13.
    [9]   On November 3, Mother requested that the court appoint a guardian ad litem
    (“GAL”), which the court did on December 2. The GAL submitted her report
    to the court on December 31, 2015. In her report, the GAL recommended that
    Father have sole physical custody of Child because Father would support
    1
    Previously, in an e-mail dated April 30, 2015, counsel for Mother had asked counsel for Father to have
    Father sign such an authorization, and to “consider this a request under the discovery rules.” Appellant’s
    App. at 59.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016          Page 4 of 18
    Child’s relationship with Mother, but Mother would not support Child’s
    relationship with Father. The GAL noted that Mother admitted that she kept
    health information about Child from Father and that she did not support Father
    spending time with Child. The GAL also made the following relevant
    recommendations:
    In conclusion, after conducting a thorough investigation in this
    matter, I respectfully recommend the following as in the best
    interests of the parties’ minor child, [J.M.]:
    1.       Physical custody of [J.M.] with Father in Mesa, Arizona.
    2.       Parenting time for Mother and [J.M.] in Indiana pursuant
    to Section III of the IPTG where distance is a major factor,
    with some accommodations to the number and length of
    visits for 2016-2017 as outlined above,[2] unless the parties
    may otherwise agree.
    3.       Exchanges shall take place as outlined above at the
    Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, or Indianapolis
    International Airport with a parent flying with [J.M.] until
    he is of an age where he may travel without an adult
    accompanying him. Parties shall deliver [J.M.] to the
    other two (2) hours before scheduled departure at an
    agreed upon location outside of the designated TSA
    security area.
    2
    The GAL report recommended additional parenting time beyond what is outlined in Section III of the
    Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016      Page 5 of 18
    4.      Contact by Skype or other video chat method three (3)
    times per week, to be initiated by the parent exercising
    time with [J.M.] to the other parent. Should the parties be
    unable to agree on a day and time, then said calls shall
    take place every Sunday, Thursday, and Friday at 6:30
    p.m. EDT.
    5.      Each party shall facilitate the Skype calls for [J.M.] in
    order to have an optimal call and do nothing to interfere
    with the call.
    6.      Opportunities for additional parenting time to include
    Mother’s visits to the local Mesa, Arizona[,] area with
    notice to Father pursuant to Section III (5) of the IPTG.
    7.      Joint legal custody decision-making authority for major
    life decisions for [J.M.]
    8.      Each parent to inform the other of all health related issues
    for [J.M.]
    9.      Each parent to have direct access to school, childcare, and
    health provider information.
    10.     Parents to not share in any manner the contents of the
    GAL report with or in front of the minor child, [J.M.]
    11.     Parents to not disseminate the contents of this report to
    others except as otherwise provided within this report.
    12.     Parents to speak with or of one another in only a positive
    or neutral manner in front of or to the minor child.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 6 of 18
    13.     Parents to not allow others (family members and friends)
    to speak of the other parent in anything other than a
    positive or neutral manner in front of or to the minor
    child.
    14.     Parents to not post negatively of the other on social media.
    15.     No repercussions to the minor child in any manner for
    anything that was shared with the GAL during my
    appointment.
    Appellant’s App., Vol. 3, at 55-56.
    [10]   On January 4, Mother filed her motion for findings of fact and conclusions of
    law. The trial court held the final dissolution hearing on January 6, 2016, and
    issued a final dissolution order on March 16 in which it entered the following
    relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law:
    FINDINGS OF FACT
    ***
    7.       . . . On or about December 31, 2015, the GAL, Cathy M.
    Brownson, filed a 55-page report to this Court with
    recommendations as to custody, parenting time, and
    communication between the parties. This report and the
    GAL’s testimony have been considered by the Court.
    8.      Each party is a suitable parent. [J.M.] needs a custodial
    parent who will be supportive of his relationship with the
    non-custodial parent. [J.M.] needs a custodial parent who
    will speak of the other parent in only a positive or neutral
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 7 of 18
    manner; one who will not allow other family members or
    friends to speak of the other parent in anything other than
    a positive or neutral manner.
    ***
    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    ***
    2.      Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8 provides that “the Court shall
    enter a custody order in accordance with the best interest
    of the child.” Respondent [Father] shall have sole physical
    custody of the parties’ minor child, [J.M.] (DOB 11-02-
    12). The Court is convinced[,] based upon the evidence,
    the exhibits, and the GAL’s report[,] that Father will be
    the more neutral of the two parents and that he will foster
    an environment where [J.M.] can continue to maintain a
    strong, positive, and loving relationship with both parents.
    3.      The parties will share joint legal custody of the parties’
    minor child.
    4.      The Petitioner shall pay Respondent the sum of $114.00
    per week in child support. (See attached worksheet)
    5.      The Petitioner shall have parenting time with the minor
    child in accordance with the Indiana Parenting Time
    Guidelines (“IPTG”), Section III, where distance is a
    major factor[,] with some accommodations to the number
    and length of the visits for 2016-2-17 as set out in the
    GAL’s report.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 8 of 18
    6.       The Court adopts the recommendations of the GAL in
    items 3 through 15 of her report, including provisions for
    additional parenting time and communication via Skype
    between the minor child and the Petitioner.
    Appellant’s App., Vol. 2, at 16, 18. This appeal ensued.
    Discussion and Decision
    Issue One: Discovery of Mental Health Records
    [11]   Mother maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her
    motion to compel discovery of Father’s mental health records and granted
    Father’s motion to quash.3
    “Our standard of review in discovery matters is limited to
    determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.”
    Crawford v. State, 
    948 N.E.2d 1165
    , 1169 (Ind. 2011) (quoting
    Terre Haute Reg'l Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, 
    600 N.E.2d 1358
    , 1362
    (Ind. 1992)). The trial court abuses its discretion when its
    “decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and
    circumstances before the court.” Jacobs v. State, 
    22 N.E.3d 1286
    ,
    1288 (Ind. 2015). “We do not reweigh the evidence; rather, we
    determine whether the evidence before the trial court can serve as
    a rational basis for its decision.” DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v.
    Brown, 
    29 N.E.3d 729
    , 732 (Ind. 2015).
    Hale v. State, 
    54 N.E.3d 355
    , 357 (Ind. 2016).
    3
    Father filed an objection to Mother’s motion to compel, and he filed a motion to quash the discovery
    request to a non-party. The trial court treated Father’s objection to the motion to compel as a motion to
    quash Mother’s discovery request and granted it. It appears from the record that the court did not rule on the
    motion to quash the discovery request to a non-party.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016           Page 9 of 18
    [12]   It is true, as Mother asserts, that the mental health of a party to a custody
    dispute is always relevant and discoverable upon use of the proper procedures.
    See Ind. Code 31-17-2-8(6) (2016) (providing that the trial court must consider
    the mental health of all individuals involved when determining the child’s best
    interest in a custody dispute). However, even assuming that Mother’s request
    that Father sign an authorization to release his medical records could be
    considered a discovery request,4 Mother failed to follow the correct procedure
    for obtaining the mental health records of another. As the trial court correctly
    noted, “[d]iscovery of mental health records [is] subject to the particularized
    requirements of Ind. Code Ann. §16-39-3-3 (West 1998).” Williams v. State, 
    819 N.E.2d 381
    , 385-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.5 Therefore, in order to
    obtain Father’s mental health records, Mother was required to file a petition for
    release of the records, I.C. § 16-39-3-3(2), and provide notice to Father and the
    mental health provider of a hearing on that petition, I.C. § 16-39-3-4. Then the
    trial court would have been required to hold a confidential hearing, I.C. § 16-
    39-3-6, and make findings that (1) other reasonable methods of obtaining the
    4
    Trial Rule 26(A) lists the methods for obtaining discovery, but Mother did not use any of those methods.
    Rather, she simply sent an e-mail to Father and asked that he “consider this a request under the discovery
    rules.” Appellant’s App. at 59. That was not a proper discovery request.
    5
    Mother cites Owen v. Owen, 
    563 N.E.2d 605
    , 608 (Ind. 1990), for the proposition that a party to a custody
    dispute places his mental condition at issue and thereby waives any physician-patient privilege such that his
    mental health records are discoverable unless he obtains a protective order. However, Owen was decided
    before Indiana Code Section 16-39-3 (“Release of Mental Health Records in Investigations and Legal
    Proceedings”) was enacted in 1993. That Chapter specifically addresses special procedures to be used when
    seeking the mental health records of another party to a lawsuit without that party’s consent. Thus, while the
    reasoning of Owen is still applicable to medical records, Owen has been superseded by statutes regarding the
    discovery of mental health records specifically. 
    Williams, 819 N.E.2d at 385-86
    .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016         Page 10 of 18
    information were not available or would not be effective, and (2) the need for
    disclosure outweighed the potential for harm to the patient, I.C. § 16-39-3-7.
    [13]   Here, Mother did not follow the necessary procedures. Even if we assume her
    motion to compel discovery was a petition for release of the records under
    Indiana Code Section 16-39-3-3(2), Mother did not provide notice of the
    hearing to the provider, the hearing was not confidential, and Mother did not
    present evidence as to whether other reasonable methods of obtaining the
    records were unavailable or ineffective. The trial court properly informed
    Mother that she must follow the Title 16 procedures if she wished to obtain
    Father’s mental health records,6 and Mother failed to do so. The trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in granting Father’s motion to quash.
    Issue Two: Best Interest of the Child Findings
    [14]   At Mother’s request, the trial court entered findings and conclusions pursuant
    to Indiana Trial Rule 52, and our standard of review in that situation is well
    settled:
    First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings
    and second, whether the findings support the judgment. In
    deference to the trial court’s proximity to the issues, we disturb
    the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the
    findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. We do not
    6
    Thus, the trial court did not deny mother her due process right to present her case when it granted Father’s
    motion to quash, as Mother claims in her brief. Rather, the trial court simply insisted that Mother use the
    proper procedures to obtain the records she deemed necessary to present her case. Mother’s attorney
    acknowledged that Mother could “file a motion under Title 16, if the Court requires,” but Mother
    inexplicably chose not to do so. Tr. at 10.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016          Page 11 of 18
    reweigh the evidence, but consider only the evidence favorable to
    the trial court’s judgment. Challengers must establish that the
    trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly
    erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced
    a mistake has been made. However, while we defer substantially
    to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law.
    Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial
    Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. We evaluate
    questions of law de novo and owe no deference to a trial court’s
    determination of such questions.
    Estate of Kappel v. Kappel, 
    979 N.E.2d 642
    , 651-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
    (quotation marks and citations omitted). Because Mother requested findings
    under Trial Rule 52, the trial court was required to make findings of fact on all
    issues in the case, including the best interest of the child. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A),
    (D); I.C. § 31-17-2-8. Mother contends that the trial court failed to do so. We
    disagree.
    [15]   In finding number eight and in the last sentence of conclusion number two,7 the
    trial court stated that Child needed a custodial parent who would be supportive
    of his relationship with the non-custodial parent and that Father was the parent
    most likely to supply that supportive environment. These are findings of fact
    that consider and address what is in the best interest of Child.8 The trial court
    7
    The last sentence of conclusion number two is actually a finding of fact and is treated as such. See
    Coachmen Industries, Inc. v. Crown Steel Co., 
    577 N.E.2d 602
    , 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (citing In re Marriage of
    Miles, 
    173 Ind. App. 5
    , 
    362 N.E.2d 171
    , 174 (1977), trans. denied) (holding facts not stated in findings may be
    supplied by conclusions of law).
    8
    In fact, in making these findings, the trial court referenced the best interest standard of Indiana Code
    Section 31-17-2-8. Appellant’s App., Vol. 2, at 18.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016            Page 12 of 18
    noted that it based those findings on “the evidence, the exhibits, and the GAL’s
    report.”9 Appellant’s App., Vol. 2, at 18. The GAL report contained
    information and recommendations that supported the trial court’s findings of
    fact that Father would be more likely to foster an environment supportive of the
    non-custodial parent. And those findings of fact support the trial court’s
    conclusion that it was in Child’s best interest for Father to have sole physical
    custody. Thus, the trial court did make findings of fact on the issue of Child’s
    best interest, and those findings support the judgment that Father should have
    sole physical custody of Child.
    Issue Three: Consideration of the Relocation Statute
    [16]   Mother maintains that the trial court erred when it failed to consider the factors
    contained in the relocation statutes in its custody determination. We cannot
    agree. First, the relevant statute, Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-2, does not
    require that a court consider the relocation factors10 when making an initial
    custody determination; rather, the statute plainly states that the court may
    consider such factors. Dillon v. Dillon, 
    42 N.E.3d 165
    , 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
    9
    Thus, the trial court did not simply state that the GAL “testified” that Father would foster a more
    supportive environment than Mother, as Mother claims in her brief. Appellant’s Br. at 37. Rather, the trial
    court found as a fact that Father would foster a more supportive environment and it simply cited the GAL
    report as support for that finding. Appellant’s App., Vol. 2, at 18.
    10
    Those factors include the distance of the proposed change of residence and the expense involved for the
    non-relocating parent to have parenting time. I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016        Page 13 of 18
    Therefore, even if the trial court had not considered the relocation factors, its
    failure to do so would not have been error.
    [17]   Second, it appears from the findings and conclusions that the trial court did, in
    fact, consider the issue of relocation and distance when it made its custody
    determination. The GAL’s fifty-five page report recounted in detail her
    observations from her extensive interviews with Child’s parents and relatives
    and her visits to the homes in both Indiana and Arizona. The GAL report also
    addressed the traveling expenses that would be involved in parenting time for
    either parent, given the distance between their homes. The trial court
    considered this report in making its custody determination, and it adopted the
    GAL’s recommendations regarding the long-distance parenting time. Thus,
    although it was not required to do so, the court clearly did consider relocation
    factors when it made its final judgment.
    Issue Four: Child Support
    [18]   Finally, Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it
    calculated her child support obligation.11 Child support calculations are made
    utilizing the income shares model set forth in the Indiana Child Support
    Guidelines. Duckworth v. Duckworth, 
    989 N.E.2d 352
    , 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
    These Guidelines apportion the cost of supporting children between the parents
    11
    We held this appeal in abeyance and remanded to the trial court to provide a child support worksheet,
    which it did on October 18, 2016.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016       Page 14 of 18
    according to their means. 
    Id. A calculation
    of child support under the
    Guidelines is presumed valid. 
    Id. Therefore, we
    will not reverse a support
    order unless the determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
    and circumstances. 
    Id. When reviewing
    a child support order, we do not assess
    credibility or re-weigh evidence; we confine our review to the evidence and
    reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the trial court’s decision. 
    Id. [19] Mother
    contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not factor
    in the following circumstances in calculating her child support obligation: 1)
    the cost to her to care for her two prior-born children; 2) her work-related child
    care expenses; 3) travel expenses she will incur to visit Child in Arizona; and 4)
    her diminished income. We address each contention in turn.
    Prior-born Children
    [20]   At the final hearing, Mother testified that she has two children from a prior
    relationship who live with her. And, while there is no court order in place
    regarding Mother’s obligation to support those children, she correctly points out
    that she has a common law duty to support them. See Boone v. Boone, 
    924 N.E.2d 649
    , 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Mother maintains that Child Support
    Guideline 3(C)(3) requires that that financial obligation be deducted from her
    weekly gross income in calculating her weekly adjusted income. But Mother
    “bears the burden of proving the obligation and payment of the obligation”
    based upon “funds actually expended” on the two other children, and she does
    not direct us to any evidence in the record to show that she met that burden.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 15 of 18
    Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(C)(3) cmt. 3. Accordingly, absent any relevant
    evidence, Mother cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion when it
    did not deduct from her weekly gross income an amount related to her support
    for her two prior-born children.
    Child Care Expenses
    [21]   Mother maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it provided a
    credit for child care expenses to Father for fifty-two weeks but none to Mother,
    who will have Child in her care approximately twelve weeks per year. Mother
    testified that she incurs child care expenses of $260 per week for Child during
    those twelve weeks. On appeal, Mother contends that she will incur those
    expenses because she will be working and in school. But Mother did not argue
    to the trial court that, should it award Father custody of Child, her child
    support obligation should be reduced by the amount she pays for child care
    during the twelve-week period. Moreover, while Mother states on appeal that
    Father “only pays [for work-related child care] for 39 to 40 weeks a year, not 52
    as the trial court applied to him,” Mother’s citation to the record does not
    support that allegation. Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 11. Without evidence
    showing that Father pays for less than fifty-two weeks of child care, Mother
    cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion on this issue.
    Travel Expenses
    [22]   The trial court has the discretion to deviate from the Guideline amount for child
    support to account for a parent’s travel expenses in exercising parenting time.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 16 of 18
    See Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 
    934 N.E.2d 152
    , 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Mother
    testified that she cannot afford to travel to Arizona to exercise visitation with
    Child. But Mother did not present evidence regarding what her expenses would
    be for that travel, and she did not argue to the trial court that it should deduct
    travel expenses from her child support obligation in the event that the court
    awarded custody to Father. Because Mother did not present evidence showing
    how much it would cost her to exercise visitation and did not ask the trial court
    to account for travel expenses in its child support calculation, Mother has failed
    to preserve this issue for appellate review and the issue is waived.
    Income
    [23]   Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found her
    weekly gross income to be $480. In particular, Mother maintains that, because
    she testified that she was about to stop working full time and start working part
    time in order to go back to school, the trial court was required to find her
    weekly gross income to be “less” than $480. Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 12. But,
    as the trial court found, Mother “presented no evidence as to the change in her
    Weekly Gross Income (‘WGI’) that would result from her schedule change.”
    Oct. 18 Child Support Order at 2. Moreover, on her verified child support
    worksheet admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Mother stated that her WGI was
    $480. Accordingly, any error on this issue was invited by Mother, and she
    cannot now complain. 
    Duckworth, 989 N.E.2d at 354
    . Mother has not
    demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion when it calculated
    Mother’s child support obligation.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 17 of 18
    Conclusion
    [24]   Because Mother failed to follow the correct statutory procedure for obtaining
    mental health records in a legal proceeding, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion when it granted Father’s motion to quash Mother’s motion to compel
    discovery of such records. Nor did the trial court err when it made its findings
    of fact and conclusions of law; those findings address both the issues of Child’s
    best interest and Father’s relocation to Arizona. Finally, the trial court did not
    abuse its discretion when it calculated Mother’s child support obligation.
    [25]   Affirmed.
    Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-DR-769 | November 28, 2016   Page 18 of 18