# Cross v. Cross

> Indiana Court of Appeals · August 7, 2008 · 891 N.E.2d 635

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738228

## Case

- **Full name:** Craig CROSS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Victoria CROSS, Appellee-Petitioner
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 7, 2008
- **Citations:** 891 N.E.2d 635; 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 1679; 2008 WL 3091051
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baker
- **Judges:** Brown, Mathias, Baker
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738228

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738228. Public record. Not legal advice.