J.W. v. P.B. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Feb 05 2015, 10:00 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE J.W. Carmel, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

J.W., February 5, 2015

Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Cause No. 16A01-1406-DR-239 v. Appeal from the Decatur Circuit Court. The Honorable Kathleen Tighe P.B., Coriden, Special Judge. Appellee-Respondent Cause No. 16C01-0805-DR-182

Baker, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1406-DR-239 | February 5, 2015 Page 1 of 3 [1] J.W. appeals the trial court’s order reducing P.B.’s child support obligation.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] J.W. (Mother) and P.B. (Father) were married for seventeen years and have

four children together. In 2008, their marriage was dissolved. [3] On January 7, 2013, the trial court issued an order requiring Father to pay

Mother $227 in weekly child support for the three children who were still under

the age of nineteen. [4] On February 28, 2013, one of Mother and Father’s daughters turned nineteen.

On May 24, 2013, Father filed a petition to modify child support. The trial

court recalculated Father’s child support obligation for the two minor children,

giving Father a parenting time credit for 98 overnights per year. The trial court

concluded that Father owed $163.50 per week in child support. [5] The trial court ordered Father to make weekly payments of this amount to

Mother and gave him a credit for any amount he may have paid in excess of

this amount from the date of the filing of the petition. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Mother argues that the trial court incorrectly calculated Father’s child support

obligation by giving him credit for too many overnights. We will affirm a trial

court’s award of child support unless it is clearly erroneous, meaning that the

determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1406-DR-239 | February 5, 2015 Page 2 of 3

circumstances before the court. In re Paternity of Jo.J., 992 N.E.2d 760, 766 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2013). We will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the judgment and will not reweigh the evidence or judge the

credibility of the witnesses. Id. [7] Mother claims that Father incorrectly reported the number of overnights he had

with the children on the child support worksheet that he presented to the trial

court. Mother argues that, “[w]hen child support is calculated using the actual

number of overnights, the outcome is significantly different from what was

ordered . . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. Mother fails to specify what she believes to

be the correct number of overnights. [8] Mother has also failed to include a transcript of the relevant hearing in the

record. On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of presenting a record that is

complete with respect to the issue raised. Ford v. State, 704 N.E.2d 457, 461

(Ind. 1998). Here, we are left with nothing other than the trial court’s order—

and Mother’s assertion that the order is clearly erroneous—on which to base

our judgment. We simply do not know what was before the trial court.

Consequently, we are forced to conclude that Mother has failed to meet her

burden. [9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A01-1406-DR-239 | February 5, 2015 Page 3 of 3