Opinion
24A-DC-404
08-23-2024
Cassei Lynn Mentis, Appellant-Petitioner v. Joshua Michael Mentis, Appellee-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Erik H. Carter Carter Legal Services LLC Noblesville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Whitney K. Beck The Beck Law Office Kokomo, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Howard Circuit Court The Honorable Douglas Tate, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34C01-1707-DC-656
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Erik H. Carter
Carter Legal Services LLC
Noblesville, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Whitney K. Beck
The Beck Law Office
Kokomo, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
May, Judge.
[¶1] Cassei Lynn Mentis ("Mother") appeals following orders concerning the custody and support of K.M. ("Child"), who is Mother's child with Joshua Michael Mentis ("Father"). The Howard County court entered orders concerning custody on July 8, 2022; December 27, 2022; January 27, 2023; and February 2, 2023 (collectively, "Custody Orders"), which ultimately granted custody of Child to Father. Then on January 19, 2024, that same trial court entered an order granting Father's "Motion for Order of Retroactive Support" (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 16) ("Support Order"). Because res judicata precludes our review of the Custody Orders and Mother makes no argument regarding the Support Order, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Child was born on February 6, 2016, during the parties' marriage. On July 7, 2017, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in White County. On February 23, 2018, the White County court issued an order dissolving the marriage. As part of the order, Mother was granted physical and legal custody of Child, and Father was granted parenting time supervised by Mother or Child's maternal grandmother.
[¶3] Starting in April 2019, the parties began repetitively litigating child custody, parenting time, and child support. In late 2021, Mother alleged that Father sexually abused Child and the Department of Child Services ("DCS") became involved in the matter. During the DCS investigation in December 2021, an interview with Child "revealed that she had been coached as to what to say regarding these allegations." (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 21.) On May 19, 2022, DCS closed its investigation into Mother's allegations and found them unsubstantiated.
[¶4] Shortly thereafter, under a new cause number in White County, Mother filed a petition for a protective order on behalf of Child. The petition alleged Father had sexually abused Child. The White County court issued an ex parte protective order.
[¶5] On May 26, 2022, Father filed motions in the White County actions objecting to venue, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction, and asking that all pending matters be transferred from White County to Howard County. The same day, the White County court granted Father's motion and transferred all matters to Howard County. Also that same day, in Howard County, Father filed a motion to modify child custody.
[¶6] Upon transfer to Howard County, the Howard County trial court (hereinafter "trial court") conducted a hearing regarding the ex parte protective order on June 23, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the trial court issued an order dismissing the ex parte protective order.
[¶7] The trial court set a hearing on Father's motion for modification of child custody for July 12, 2022. On July 7, 2022, Mother filed a motion to continue the July 12, 2022, hearing. On July 12, 2022, the trial court issued an order granting Mother's motion to continue and ordering, "[Father] shall have temporary primary custody of [Child], effective immediately." (Id. at 47.) The trial court rescheduled the hearing on Father's motion for modification of child custody for October 11, 2022.
[¶8] On August 2, 2022, the trial court issued an order regarding Father's temporary custody of Child. In that order, the trial court further clarified Father's custody of Child pending the trial court's decision on his modification petition. On August 15, 2022, the trial court entered a temporary child support order that required Mother to pay $5.00 per week in child support.
On August 16, 2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal regarding the August 2, 2022, order and the August 15, 2022, order under Appellate Cause Number 22A-DC-1967 ("Cause 1967"). On December 5, 2022, our court issued an order dismissing Cause 1967 with prejudice because Mother made no further filings after her notice of appeal.
[¶9] On October 11, 2022, the trial court conducted the hearing regarding Father's motion to modify custody. During that hearing, Mother "began using vulgar language and argued with the court and [Father's] counsel." (Id. at 20.) Despite the trial court's warnings, Mother would not refrain from such conduct and "the court directed the security officer to take her into custody to be charged with direct contempt of court and removed her from the courtroom." (Id.) Ultimately, the trial court "decided not to find her in contempt, but admonished her that such behavior would not be tolerated in future court proceedings." (Id.) The trial court continued the matter until December 6, 2022.
[¶10] The trial court held the continued hearing on Father's motion to modify custody on December 6, 2022. On January 27, 2023, the trial court entered an amended order ("Custody Modification Order") in which it concluded:
The trial court entered its original order on December 27, 2022. On January 26, 2023, Mother filed a motion to correct errors that asked the trial court to remove findings regarding a sexual abuse allegation made by Father against her husband. The trial court granted Mother's motion on January 27, 2023, and issued its amended order the same day.
The court finds that [Mother's] conduct in not only filing the false allegations of misconduct with DCS, but further pursuing such false allegations in a court of law is evidence of a change in circumstances warranting a change in custody. The court finds that it is in [Child's] best interest to award sole physical and legal custody of [Child] to [Father]. [Mother] shall be granting [sic] parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. With regard to summer vacation, [Mother] shall exercise parenting time the first half of the summer.(Id. at 22.) In addition, the trial court ordered the parties to "submit proposed child support worksheets within thirty (30) days" of the order. (Id.)
[¶11] On February 23, 2023, Mother filed her appeal of the Custody Orders under Cause Number 23A-DC-399 ("Cause 399"). On May 3, 2023, Mother filed a "Motion for Extension of Time and/or Order Compelling Preparation of Transcript[,]" asking our court to grant the court reporter an extension of time to file the transcript and/or issue an order to compel the court reporter to file a transcript. (Appellee's App. Vol. II at 51.) On May 8, 2023, our court granted Mother's motion in part in an order that stated:
Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds and orders as follows: 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time and/or Order Compelling Preparation of Transcript as of the date of this order. 2. Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time and/or Order Compelling Preparation of Transcript is granted in part. 3. Within ten (10) days of the date of this order, the Court Reporter for Cause Number 34C01-1707-DC-656 is ordered to complete and file the transcript with the Howard Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk. 4. Within five (5) days of the date that the Court Reporter filed the transcript, the Howard Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Completion of Transcript with the Clerk of this Court and to serve a copy of the Notice on the parties. 5. The Clerk of this Court is directed to send this order to the parties, the Court Reporter for Cause Number 34C01-1707-DC-656, Special Judge Douglas Tate of the Howard Circuit Court, and the Howard Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk. 6. The Howard Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 34C01-1707-DC-656, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.(Id.) The court reporter did not comply with our order. On September 8, 2023, our court issued an order in which we "dismissed [Mother's] appeal [of the Custody Orders] with prejudice." (Id. at 52.)
[¶12] On November 3, 2023, Father filed a motion in the trial court for child support retroactive to his filing of the petition for custody. The trial court set a hearing on the matter for December 5, 2023. On December 4, 2023, Father filed a motion to continue the December 5, 2023, hearing. The trial court cancelled the December 5, 2023, hearing and held a hearing on January 19, 2024. The same day, the trial court issued an order that granted Father's motion for child support and ordered Mother to pay $89.00 per week in child support and an arrearage of $2,028.00 (hereinafter, "Support Order"). The Support Order also modified the amount each party is to pay for Child's medical expenses.
Discussion and Decision
[¶13] As an initial matter, we must determine if we can review some of the orders Mother purports to be appealing. Mother asserts she appeals the Custody Orders and Support Order. As noted above, our court issued an order on September 8, 2023, that dismissed Mother's appeal of the Custody Orders with prejudice. As we have long held, "dismissal with prejudice is conclusive of the rights of the parties and is res judicata as to any questions that might have been litigated[.]" Marion Cnty. Cir. Ct. v. King, 150 N.E.3d 666, 672 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (quoting Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortg. &Investment Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006)), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Because our September 8, 2023, order dismissed Cause 399 with prejudice, review of any questions that might have been litigated during that appeal are precluded by res judicata. See, e.g., Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (dismissal with prejudice is res judicata as to any issues in that claim), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Therefore, we are precluded from reviewing arguments regarding the Custody Orders.
[¶14] In her brief in this appeal, Mother presents two arguments, but both of those arguments focus on the Custody Orders. As Mother does not present an argument regarding the Support Order, Mother has failed to make an argument regarding the only order properly before us on appeal. As such, Mother has presented no issue for review, and we affirm the trial court's Support Order. See, e.g., Showalter v. Town of Thorntown, 902 N.E.2d 338, 343 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (affirming trial court's judgment after finding only issue raised on appeal had been waived by failure to present it to the trial court), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[¶15] Because we are precluded by res judicata from considering Mother's arguments regarding the Custody Orders, and Mother makes no argument regarding the Support Order, we affirm.
[¶16] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.