The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a mixed ruling in a contentious post-divorce modification case involving Kevin Weinzapfel (Father) and Melissa Weinzapfel (Mother), affirming the trial court’s findings on post-secondary education costs but sending the child support calculation back for recalculation. The appellate court found that the trial judge erred by using an unsupported number of parenting time overnights for the Father and failing to explain a key deviation in the support order.
The case centered on Father’s appeal of an order modifying his child support obligation and requiring him to contribute to the college expenses of his adult son, Caden. The parents, who divorced in 2016, share three children.
Parenting Time Credit Sparks Reversal
One of the primary issues addressed by the Court of Appeals was the trial court’s calculation of the Father’s child support obligation. Under Indiana Child Support Guideline 6, when parents share 50/50 custody, parenting time is considered equally shared if the overnights fall between 181 and 183 per year.
Both parents had proposed figures close to this guideline: Mother’s worksheet suggested crediting the Father for 184 overnights, and the Father requested credit for 183 overnights for the younger children. However, the trial court ultimately credited the Father with only 98 parenting time overnights.
The Court of Appeals quickly flagged this as an error. Judge May, writing for the panel, noted that the trial court offered no explanation for deviating from the guideline, which is required under Guideline 3 if the calculated award is deemed unjust. Because there was no evidence in the record to support the 98-overnight figure, the appellate court concluded the trial court erred. This portion of the order was reversed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to recalculate the child support using the appropriate parenting time credit or to provide a written justification for any deviation.
Furthermore, the appellate court pointed to a related issue: the trial court discontinued a previous reduction in the Father’s child support obligation that had been granted in prior orders due to his assumption of the majority of the marital debt (approximately $72,000). Since the Father was still carrying two-thirds of that debt, the appellate court asked the trial court, upon remand, to explain why this reduction was discontinued.
No Repudiation Found for College Costs
The Father had argued that he should not be responsible for any post-secondary education costs because Caden, who turned 18 in December 2023, had “repudiated” their relationship, thereby allowing the Father to dictate his contribution.
Repudiation, in this context, means a complete refusal by the child to participate in a relationship with the parent after reaching the age of majority.
The Father pointed to a period between February and May 2024 when Caden stopped attending parenting time following an altercation. He also expressed suspicion about Caden’s contact in the fall of 2024, suggesting Caden was only reaching out to avoid a finding of repudiation before the upcoming court date.
However, the trial court disagreed, finding substantial evidence that Caden desired a relationship. The court noted text messages between May and September 2024, including an invitation to graduation, birthday wishes, and a request to visit on Father’s Day. The family therapist also testified that Caden appeared to be trying to reach out for the relationship despite underlying issues.
The Court of Appeals deferred to the trial court’s assessment of the facts and witness credibility. Finding that the Father’s arguments amounted to asking the court to reweigh the evidence, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Caden had *not* repudiated the relationship.
CDV Benefit Properly Credited to Student Share
Finally, the Father challenged the trial court’s decision regarding the Child of Disabled Veteran (CDV) Benefit, a tuition and fee exemption Caden received due to the Father’s veteran status. The trial court attributed this $10,760 annual benefit to Caden’s share of his college expenses, rather than crediting it toward the Father’s contribution.
The Father argued that since his veteran benefits were considered when calculating his child support, fairness dictated that this educational benefit should also count toward his college cost obligation.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, drawing a distinction between direct financial support and specialized educational benefits. Citing precedent, the court explained that educational benefits like the CDV Benefit are more like scholarships—they are earmarked for specific educational use, are paid directly to the institution, and require the student to meet certain academic standards.
Under Indiana Child Support Guideline 8, courts have discretion to credit scholarships and grants to the student’s share of expenses. Because the CDV Benefit functions more like a scholarship than a general allotment, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to attribute it to Caden’s portion.
In summary, the Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings regarding repudiation and the CDV Benefit but reversed the child support order, remanding the case for recalculation of parenting time credit and clarification on the marital debt adjustment.