When engaging in this review, we consider only evidence that supports the trial court's judgment, we do not reweigh the evidence, and we do not reassess the credibility of witnesses. Lechien v. Wren , 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). It is the appellant's burden to establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous.
Before addressing the trial court's support calculation, we observe that this court has noted that while Indiana law recognizes that a child's repudiation of a parent under certain circumstances will obviate a parent's obligation to pay certain expenses, including college expenses, any such repudiation is not a "release of a parent's financial responsibility to the payment of child support . . . ." Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Bales v. Bales, 801 N.E.2d 196, 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied).
[19] Since McKay, we have consistently upheld trial court findings of repudiation where children, after entering adulthood, continue to actively reject a parent. See Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1150–52 (despite father's willingness for years to maintain a relationship, child continued into adulthood to refuse a relationship with father); Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (adult son's only communication with father for over a year was when he went to father's workplace to ask for money, son had not acknowledged Father's Day or father's birthday for several years, and as an adult, son petitioned to have his last name changed to his mother's maiden name); Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (last time mother saw adult daughter was six months before the hearing in a meeting that had been confrontational and intimidating to mother, and in a telephone conversation a few days before the hearing, her adult son had told her, “I hate you you f[* * *]ing bitch. I hope you die.”); Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (even though daughter's blatant rejection of her father commenced in 2000, when she was a minor, “it continued uninterrupted after she reached majority in August of 2002”).
We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). The appellant must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous.
However, a review of the cases cited by Mother reveals that this court will affirm a trial court's decision regarding repudiation as long as there is evidence in the record that supports it. See Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 844 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (affirming the trial court's finding that the son had repudiated his relationship with his father based upon a review of the evidence and testimony most favorable to the judgment); Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116, 1120 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that two children had repudiated their relationship with their mother because the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's decision); Norris, 833 N.E.2d at 1033–35 (holding that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the child had repudiated her relationship with her father; even though the repudiation commenced when she was a minor, “it continued uninterrupted after she reached majority”); Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d at 134 (affirming the trial court's finding that the son had not repudiated his father); cf. Redd v. Redd, 901 N.E.2d 545, 552 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (finding that the trial court's finding concerning repudiation was not supported by the
The trial court's specific findings will be set aside “only where they are clearly erroneous, that is, when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support them.” Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). The findings and conclusions must be liberally construed in support of the judgment, and they will be considered clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Skweres v. Diamond Craft Co., 512 N.E.2d 217, 219 (Ind.Ct.App.1987).
Where a court enters findings of fact and conclusions, we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then determine whether the findings support the judgment. Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support them.
A review of these cases reveals that a vast majority dealt with situations in which a parent was ordered to pay for their child’s college expenses, not where the parent had already agreed to do so. See Cunningham v. Barton, 139 N.E.3d 1081, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (trial court granted petition to require parent to pay for college expenses); Duncan v. Duncan, 81 N.E.3d 219, 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (same); In re Paternity of Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (same); Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127, 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (same); Loden v. Loden, 740 N.E.2d 865, 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (same); Thacker v. Thacker, 710 N.E.2d 942, 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (same); McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164 (same); see also Messner v. Messner, 118 N.E.3d 64, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (trial court denied petition to require parent to pay for college expenses); Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144, 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (same); Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (same); Redd v. Redd, 901 N.E.2d 545, 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (same); Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (same).
[¶14] Whenever a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions, we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and then we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a conviction that a mistake has been made.
[¶16] We acknowledge that this Court has previously held that the child support guidelines "expressly state that a parent's basic child support obligation will be reduced if or when the child is living away from home." Lechien v. Wren, 950 N.E.2d 838, 846 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). However, the support order in Lechien was entered pursuant to a child support obligation worksheet and the guidelines.