C.A.M. ex Rel. Robles v. Miner

6 Citing cases

  1. J.M. v. C.B. (In re B.E.B.)

    No. 24A-AD-00648 (Ind. App. Sep. 30, 2024)

    Rather, such an award is discretionary." C.A.M. ex rel. Robles v. Miner, 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005). For example, we have found that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entered an order that was retroactive only to the filing of the petition, based upon clearly articulated reasons - the family had been intact for a decade; the father had provided financial support; and the child had received benefits based upon the father's retirement account.

  2. King v. Lannet

    No. 23A-JP-2933 (Ind. App. Jun. 24, 2024)

    C.A.M. ex rel. Robles v. Miner, 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005).

  3. Thielen v. Smith

    Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JP-601 (Ind. App. Aug. 19, 2020)

    This was clearly within the trial court's discretion. See Boone v. Boone, 924 N.E.2d 649, 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (noting that under common law duty of support and Section 31-14-11-5, "our courts may not only impose a child support obligation, but may also make that obligation retroactive, commencing even before the date of the establishment of paternity, all the way back to and including the date of the birth of the child.") (citing In re Paternity of McGuire-Byers, 892 N.E.2d 187, 191-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied); C.A.M. ex rel. Robles v. Miner, 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) ("[T]he trial court is not required to award retroactive child support from a date prior to the filing of the paternity action. Rather, such an award is discretionary.").

  4. C.L. v. B.A. (In re H.N.L.)

    989 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. App. 2013)

    The trial court retroactively applied Father's child support obligation to the date Mother and H.N.L. moved out of Father's residence, July 1, 2011. A trial court has the discretion to award child support retroactively from a date prior to the filing of a paternity action. In re Paternity of C.A.M., 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Here, the trial court chose the date Mother and H.N.L. moved out of Father's residence and noted that Mother had not requested child support from Father after H.N.L.'s birth.

  5. Paternity v. McGuire-Byers

    892 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that father pay retroactive child support after adult child filed paternity action

    Rather, such an award is discretionary." C.A.M. ex rel. Robles v. Miner, 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005); see also I.C. ยง 31-14-11-5. Raymond does not dispute this standard of review or the amount of the weekly child support award but argues that such payments should not be retroactive. He claims the trial court did not look at the financial resources of the non-custodial parent and the hardship the arrearage will place on Raymond's four other young children as required by Indiana Code Section 31-14-11-2(a)(5).

  6. K.T.P. ex Rel. A.S.P. v. Atchison

    848 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    In Atchison, the State sought reimbursement from the father for medical expenses incurred by the minor child approximately thirty-four days after he was born.

    Statutory interpretation is a matter of law determined de novo by this court. C.A.M. ex rel. Robles v. Miner, 835 N.E.2d 602, 606 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005). We will construe and interpret a statute only if it is ambiguous.