Opinion
23A-JP-2933
06-24-2024
Alicia Eleanor King, Appellant-Petitioner v. Randall Michael Lannet, Appellee-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew S. Williams Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Laura Boyer King Scott & Aplin LLC Fort Wayne, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Judge The Honorable Jesus R. Trevino, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02C01-2204-JP-266
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Matthew S. Williams Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Laura Boyer King Scott & Aplin LLC Fort Wayne, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Upon the petition of Alicia King ("Mother"), paternity of eight-year-old A.A.L. ("Child") was established in Randall Lannet ("Father"). The trial court awarded primary physical custody of Child to Father and established a child support obligation for Mother. Mother filed a motion to correct error, challenging the omission of a retroactive child support order for Father and the 2023 tax year dependency allocation; the motion was denied following a hearing. We affirm that denial order in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Issues
[¶2] Mother presents two issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Father to claim Child as his dependent for the 2023 tax year; and
II. Whether the trial court contravened statutory authority by refusing to enter an order that Father pay retroactive child support.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] Child was born in May of 2015. Father executed a paternity affidavit one day after Child's birth, but no legal proceedings were initiated to establish paternity, custody, child support, or parenting time until Mother filed her petition on April 11, 2022. Mother requested that she remain Child's primary physical custodian and that Father pay child support retroactive to Child's birth. On April 12, Mother filed an emergency motion for Child's return, alleging that Father had refused to return Child to her on April 10. On April 20, Father filed a motion for an emergency change of custody.
[¶4] On April 26, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order establishing Father's paternity of Child. The order additionally set forth a temporary custody order, providing that Mother and Father were to have joint legal custody of Child, but that Father would have the primary physical custody of Child "until such time as Mother resides in a home free of registered sex offenders and convicted or alleged child molesters." (App. Vol. II, pg. 86.) The issue of child support was deferred.
[¶5] The parties attempted mediation and agreed on a summer parenting time schedule, but most issues remained unresolved. The parties then agreed to continue the proceedings to facilitate a report by a Guardian ad Litem. On May 17, 2023, the trial court conducted a final hearing on contested issues. On August 9, the trial court ordered the following: Father was to have the primary physical custody of Child; the parents were to share Child's legal custody; Mother was to pay $35.00 weekly child support; and parents were to alternately claim Child as a dependent for tax purposes, with tax year 2023 allocated to Father.
[¶6] Mother filed a motion to correct error. Among other things, she alleged that the order was "silent as to Father's support arrearage" and contended that she should be able to claim Child as her dependent for calendar year 2023 because "she was the custodial parent for more than half of calendar year 2023, during which time she was the sole financial support for child." (Id. at 203-04.) Father also filed a motion to correct error, challenging the prohibition against alcohol use during parenting time. On October 4, the trial court conducted a hearing. On November 8, the trial court entered an order denying Mother's motion to correct error and granting Father's motion to correct error. Mother now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Dependency Exemption for Tax Purposes
[¶7] For tax exemption purposes, "[t]he federal tax code automatically grants to a custodial parent the dependency exemption for a child but permits an exception where the custodial parent executes a written waiver of the exemption for a particular tax year." Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 744 (Ind. 2015) (citations omitted). The trial court may order the custodial parent to waive the dependency tax exemption if the claiming parent has paid 95% of their court-ordered child support. See Ind. Child Supp. Guideline 9.
[¶8] Indiana Code Section 31-16-6-1.5 provides in relevant part:
(a) A court shall specify in a child support order which parent of a child may claim the child as a dependent for purposes of federal and state taxes.
(b) In determining which parent may claim the child as a dependent under subsection (a), the court shall consider the following:
(1) The value of claiming the child as a dependent at the marginal tax rate of each parent. (2) The income of each parent.
(3) The age of the child or children and the number of years that the child or children could be claimed as a dependent or dependents.
(4) Each parent's percentage of the costs of supporting the child or children. (5) If applicable, the financial aid benefit for postsecondary education for the child or children.
(6) If applicable, the financial burden each parent assumed under the property settlement in a dissolution proceeding.
(7) Any other relevant factors.
A decision about the dependency exemption falls within the trial court's "equitable discretion." Quinn v. Threlkel, 858 N.E.2d 665, 674 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).
[¶9] Mother's claim in this regard is succinct: "The trial court . . . erred when it granted the tax exemption in Father for tax year 2023, given that he had not served as primary physical custodian for at least half of that calendar year." Appellant's Brief at 9. Father responds: "The amount of time the child physically spends with each parent is not an enumerated factor [in I.C. § 31-166-1.5]." Appellee's Brief at 13. Father is correct, strictly speaking, but we observe that the court is to consider "any other relevant factors." Id.
[¶10] Thus, the amount of time that Child spent in the respective parental homes in 2023 may have been considered as relevant evidence for a tax year 2023 dependency exemption. But we have before us no hearing transcript or exhibit indicating that Mother presented testimony or calculations to the trial court to support her claim. Nor does she develop a detailed argument on appeal. A bald assertion that the trial court acted in error does not demonstrate a disregard of statutory authority or other abuse of discretion.
Retroactive Child Support
[¶11] Mother contends that the trial court erroneously failed to order Father to pay retroactive child support pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-14-11-5, which provides that in a paternity action,
Mother also notes that the trial court did not enter a temporary order for child support, in accordance with Indiana Code Section 31-14-11-1.1, which provides: "In a paternity proceeding, the court shall issue a temporary order for child support if there is clear and convincing evidence that the man involved in the proceeding is the child's biological father." Mother does not develop a separate argument based upon this statute, rather focusing upon Child's right to retroactive support under Indiana Code Section 31-14-11-5 (relating back to date of birth, date of petition, or a date between those parameters).
The support order:
(1) may include the period dating from the birth of the child; and
(2) must include the period dating from the filing of the paternity action.
[¶12] An award of retroactive support for the period dating from the latter of the two dates listed in the statute is mandatory. Matter of Paternity of A.D.W., 693 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). Generally, however, "the 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." 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. Barrad v. Martin, 120 N.E.3d 565, 573 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied.
[¶13] Here, the trial court made no provision for retroactive child support in any amount, but simply ignored Father's common law or statutory duty of support during the first eight years of Child's life. "It is in the best interests of all citizens of Indiana that parents meet their obligations to support their children." Paternity of L.A. ex rel. Eppinger v. Adams, 803 N.E.2d 1196, 1201 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004). It appears that the parties agree that Father never made any payment to Mother when Child was in her custody but disagree as to whether Father acted as the de facto custodian of Child for any significant period of time. Accordingly, we remand for an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court may determine the period of time the retroactive child support order shall encompass.
Conclusion
[¶14] Mother has not shown that the trial court erred with regard to the 2023 tax year dependency exemption. However, it is clear that the trial court failed to comply with Indiana Code Section 31-14-11-5. Accordingly, we affirm the order on motion to correct error in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[¶15] Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.