Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court addresses whether trial courts may require mediation as a prerequisite to contested hearings or the filing of post-judgment requests in a paternity and custody case. The court holds that mediation may be required before contested adjudication and, in appropriate cases, before filing future proceedings, subject to applicable timing and objection procedures. It affirms the mediation order, summarily affirms the custody determination, and remands for correction of the parenting-time credit calculation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial court or local court rule may require parties to mediate as a prerequisite to contested court hearings.
- Whether a trial court may require mediation as a prerequisite to filing post-judgment requests for court proceedings.
- Whether a trial court must have specific authorization in local court rules before ordering mediation in an individual case.
- Whether the trial court correctly determined the father's parenting-time credit for child-support purposes.
Holdings
- Trial courts and local court rules may require parties to engage in mediation as a prerequisite to contested court trials or hearings. Such a requirement is an appropriate procedural step and does not violate a litigant's access to the courts under Article 1, Section 12, of the Indiana Constitution.
- A trial court may, in the exercise of sound discretion in a discrete case, order mediation as a prerequisite to filing requests for future proceedings within an already commenced case, provided the order complies with the timing and objection procedures of Indiana Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.2.
- A trial court's authority to order mediation in a specific case is not limited by local court rules and does not require separate authorization in those rules, so long as the order is not inconsistent with the Indiana Supreme Court's rules.
- The parenting-time credit calculation required correction, and the matter was remanded for entry of a corrected support order.
Key quotations
“We hold that trial courts and local court rules may require parties to engage in mediation as a prerequisite to contested court trials or hearings.” (1042)
“We conclude that a trial court may, in the exercise of sound discretion in discrete cases, order mediation as a prerequisite to the filing of requests for future proceedings therein.” (1042)
“The trial court's authority to order preliminary mediation as a prerequisite to seeking court resolution of the parties' post-decree disagreements did not require authorization from the local rules, and it was not precluded by those in Marion County.” (1043)
Factual background
Jason Edward Fuchs and Megan Martin were involved in a paternity proceeding concerning their child. Their agreed paternity judgment awarded joint legal custody, assigned primary legal and physical custody to Martin, established parenting time and child-support obligations, and allocated various expenses. The judgment also required the parents to participate in specified counseling and co-parenting programs and to mediate future parenting disputes before seeking court adjudication.
Procedural history
The trial court established paternity by agreement, awarded joint legal custody with primary legal and physical custody to the mother, ordered support and related financial obligations, and required future parenting disputes to be mediated before court adjudication. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody decision, modified the parenting-time-credit calculation, and reversed the mandatory mediation provision. The Supreme Court granted transfer, summarily affirmed the custody ruling, affirmed the mediation requirement, and remanded for correction of the support order based on the parenting-time credit.
Remand instructions
The trial court was directed to enter a corrected support order reflecting the proper parenting-time credit. The order requiring mediation before trial-court adjudication of future conflicts and parenting disputes was affirmed, as was the custody determination.