Narrative Opinion Summary
In a memorandum decision dated May 17, 2018, the appellate court considered an appeal by Justin H. Suedmeyer (Father) against the trial court's modification of his parenting time with his child, L.S., following his divorce from Julie L. Suedmeyer (Mother). Initially, the parties had agreed upon a parenting arrangement granting Mother legal and physical custody and providing Father additional parenting time. However, with L.S. beginning kindergarten, Mother sought to revise the schedule to align with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, citing the need for stability and routine. After mediation failed, a hearing was held, during which Father admitted to past dishonesty about his living situation. The trial court modified Father's parenting time to conform to the Guidelines, highlighting L.S.'s need for a stable routine. Father appealed, arguing an abuse of discretion, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The court clarified the distinction between modifying custody and parenting time, referencing Moell v. Moell, and emphasized the best interests of the child standard, noting sufficient evidence of Father's instability and the need for stability due to L.S.'s commencement of school.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Trial Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility and requires a manifest abuse of discretion for reversal.
Reasoning: The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, affirming that a reversal requires a manifest abuse of discretion.
Best Interests of the Child Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Parenting time can be altered if it serves the child’s best interests, supported by evidence of the parent's instability.
Reasoning: Parenting time can be altered if it serves the child's best interests. Evidence indicated Father's instability in housing and lack of honesty about his living situation.
Distinction Between Custody and Parenting Timesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that it modified parenting time, not custody, which are distinct legal concepts.
Reasoning: The court clarified it only modified parenting time, not custody, referencing Moell v. Moell to distinguish between the two.
Modification of Parenting Timesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court can modify parenting time to align with the child's best interests, especially when the child is starting school.
Reasoning: The trial court granted Mother's petition for parenting time modification, citing the need for stability due to L.S. starting school.