Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed post-dissolution orders concerning the emancipation of a child and a parent’s obligation to contribute to post-secondary educational expenses. It held that emancipation under Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6(a)(3) follows when the statutory requirements for termination of support are satisfied, and clarified that enrollment requires good-faith attendance or an intent to attend. The court rejected the trial court’s selected emancipation date because the record did not establish four months without qualifying educational activity, remanded for determination of the proper date, and affirmed the trial court’s findings regarding self-support and educational expenses in the portion provided.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6(a)(3) provides a basis for emancipation when an adult child has not attended or been enrolled in secondary or post-secondary education for the required period and is capable of self-support.
- Whether the statutory term "is enrolled" requires good-faith attendance or an intent to attend the educational institution in the foreseeable future.
- Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings that Courtney was not enrolled in post-secondary education and was capable of self-support.
- Whether the trial court selected a legally supported date of emancipation and correctly calculated the resulting child-support overpayment.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to require Father to contribute to Courtney's post-secondary educational expenses.
Holdings
- When a trial court finds that the requirements of Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6(a)(3) are satisfied and child support terminates, emancipation necessarily occurs as a matter of law.
- For purposes of subsection (a)(3), a child is "enrolled" only when accepted by the institution, officially registered as a student, and, in good faith, attending or intending to attend the institution in the foreseeable future.
- The trial court did not clearly err in finding that Courtney was not enrolled in post-secondary education in good faith and was capable of self-support.
- The trial court clearly erred in declaring Courtney emancipated as of September 23, 2009, because the record did not establish that the statutory four-month educational period had elapsed by that date. The matter must be remanded for determination of the proper emancipation date and recalculation of child-support overpayment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to require Father to contribute to Courtney's post-secondary educational expenses.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the more appropriate definition of subsection (a)(3)’s “is enrolled” is the one formulated by the dissent: is accepted to the institution, is officially registered at the institution as a student, and in good faith is attending or intends to attend the institution in the foreseeable future.” (658-659)
“Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to determine the proper date of Courtney’s emancipation. Using that date, the trial court must then recalculate the amount of child support Father overpaid in accordance with the portions of the Court of Appeals opinion that we summarily affirm.” (660)
“Although the majority’s analysis of the evidence is intricate, we believe that the analysis is simply a reweighing of the evidence, which is not permitted under the applicable standard of review.” (662)
Factual background
Annette Hirsch and Roger Oliver divorced in 1994 and had three children, including Courtney, who graduated from high school in spring 2009. Courtney briefly attended classes at Ivy Tech, withdrew after approximately two weeks, later reenrolled, and had worked at two part-time jobs. Father petitioned to emancipate Courtney, while Mother sought contribution toward Courtney's post-secondary educational expenses.
Procedural history
The Hamilton Superior Court declared Courtney Oliver emancipated as of September 23, 2009, declined to require Father to contribute to her post-secondary educational expenses, and entered additional orders concerning child-support overpayment, medical expenses, attorney's fees, and witness expenses. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on all challenged issues. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address emancipation and post-secondary educational expenses and summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the remaining issues.
Remand instructions
Determine the proper date of Courtney's emancipation and recalculate the amount of child support Father overpaid using that date and the portions of the Court of Appeals decision summarily affirmed. The trial court's ruling denying Father's obligation to contribute to post-secondary educational expenses remains affirmed.