Opinion

Cross v. Cross

  • 891 N.E.2d 635
  • 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 1679
  • 2008 WL 3091051
Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed
Aug 7, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Baker
On the bench
Brown, Mathias, Baker
Cited by
9 cases

explaining that the party that requests a child support modification has the burden of establishing that she was entitled to have the child support order modified

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that the party that requests a child support modification has the burden of establishing that she was entitled to have the child support order modified

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BAKER, Chief Judge,

dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding Victoria’s weekly childcare expenses. I believe that the majority’s application of the Child Support Guidelines is overly literal. The record herein reveals that Victoria was a full-time caregiver for her disabled daughter and a part-time caregiver for a patient with Alzheimer’s Disease. In fact, Victoria often cared for both at the same time, bringing her daughter with her to the patient’s home. It is certainly reasonable that Victoria sought a break from her responsibilities once a week for five hours. That break likely gave Victoria an opportunity to relax and recharge so that she could continue to care for her daughter and maintain her paying job.

In other words, I believe that the childcare cost was work related, inasmuch as that brief weekly break enabled Victoria to continue to work and receive an income. As aptly put by Victoria,

[ajllowing her a five-hour break once a week gives Victoria a small bit of what most everyone else who has a job gets— some time away from their immediate family responsibilities. If Victoria is using this time as a break, it is to give her the respite necessary to handle both the duties at her job and the responsibilities she has as [her daughter’s] full-time care-giver. In that way, the cost of care while she gets this time is incurred due to her employment.

Appellee’s Br. p. 23-24. I agree with this analysis and, consequently, would affirm this portion of the trial court’s order. In *646 all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.