690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., R.W.M. v. A.W.M., 926 N.E.2d 538, 541 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted) ("Ample authority exists which permits a trial court, at least up to and including the ruling on the motion to correct error, to alter, amend or modify its judgment without limitation.").

We have recognized that, where such arguments are raised for the first time after the timeframe for motions to correct error has lapsed, such arguments are barred by "res judicata , [and the order in question is] subject to modification only through the appeal process." R.W.M. v. A.W.M. , 926 N.E.2d 538, 541–42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Indeed, while trial courts have "ample authority" to "alter, amend[,] or modify" their judgments, Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co. v. Harlan , 504 N.E.2d 301, 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), trans.

Based upon the language in the order, I would find that it did not dispose of all claims as to all parties and did not constitute a final judgment. See Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind.2003) (holding that a final judgment disposes of all issues as to all parties thereby ending the particular case and that it leaves nothing for future determination); R.W.M. v. A.W.M., 926 N.E.2d 538, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (holding that the trial court's judgment resolved child custody and support but was not a final appealable judgment from all of the consolidated pending cases as it left one or more issues unresolved). I also cannot say that the order falls into any of the remainingcategories set forth in Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H).

While the majority concludes that "absent appeal, the order resolves all custody and parenting time issues unless and until one of the parties files a subsequent motion to modify custody and/or parenting time," supra at 10-11, the order indicates that a final determination is dependent on where Mother resides. Based upon the language in the order, I would find that it did not dispose of all claims as to all parties and did not constitute a final judgment. See Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003) (holding that a final judgment disposes of all issues as to all parties thereby ending the particular case and that it leaves nothing for future determination); R.W.M. v. A.W.M., 926 N.E.2d 538, 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the trial court's judgment resolved child custody and support but was not a final appealable judgment from all of the consolidated pending cases as it left one or more issues unresolved). I also cannot say that the order falls into any of the remaining categories set forth in Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H).