Karen Fielder v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Mar 02 2017, 9:57 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Karen Fielder Ryan G. Liffrig
Westfield, Indiana Alexander P. Pinegar
Church Church Hittle + Antrim
Noblesville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Karen Fielder, March 2, 2017
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1609-MI-2200
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
Hamilton Southeastern Schools, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Defendant Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1606-MI-5924
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] Karen Fielder’s children attend Hamilton Southeastern (HSE) schools. In
2011, Fielder filed a petition to dissolve her marriage and has been involved in a
contentious custody dispute with her ex-husband since that time. The
dissolution court has granted physical and legal custody to the children’s
father.1 Fielder has requested that HSE list her as an emergency contact—
someone who is permitted to pick up the children from school—in school
records and that she be allowed to eat lunch with her children on school days
when the court has not granted her parenting time with her children. HSE
denied both requests absent an order from the dissolution court that would
authorize these actions. Fielder filed a complaint seeking to force HSE to
comply with these requests; the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Indiana Trial Rule
12(B)(6).
[2] The first basis of Fielder’s complaint is the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. FERPA is enforced by the United
States Department of Education, and schools that do not comply with its
requirements (related to student educational records) can lose federal funding.
An individual has no right of action under FERPA; instead, only the Secretary
of Education may enforce its provisions. E.g., Norris v. Bd. of Educ., 797 F.
1Until very recently, the dissolution court did not even authorize Fielder to have unsupervised parenting
time with her children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Supp. 1452, 1465 (S.D. Ind. 1992). Therefore, the trial court properly
concluded that this claim offers no relief to Fielder.
[3] The second basis of the complaint is Indiana Code section 20-33-7-2, which
states that a school “must allow a custodial parent and a noncustodial parent of
a child the same access to their child’s education records” absent a court order
to the contrary. Fielder does not allege that she has not been provided the same
access to the children’s school records as their father. As a result, the trial court
properly concluded that this claim offers no relief to Fielder.
[4] Finally, we infer that Fielder may be arguing that the Indiana Parenting Time
Guidelines require HSE to comply with her requests. Initially, we note that the
Guidelines are merely guidelines—and, indeed, the dissolution court in this
case did not follow the Guidelines, affording Fielder substantially less parenting
time than the Guidelines suggested. Furthermore, the Guidelines are applicable
to cases involving custody and parenting time. Fielder has offered no
authority—and we can find none—suggesting that the Guidelines are somehow
applicable and binding on non-parties to a custody suit or that the Guidelines
provide a private right of action to sue a non-party for failing to comply with
part of the guidelines. Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that
this claim offers no relief to Fielder.
[5] In sum, the trial court did not err by concluding that Fielder’s complaint does
not state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Unless and until the
dissolution court enters an order authorizing HSE to list Fielder as an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 3 of 4
emergency contact and/or to have lunch with her children at school, HSE is
not in the wrong by refusing to comply with those requests.
[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1609-MI-2200 | March 2, 2017 Page 4 of 4