![]() ![]() whether the trial court erred in not finding Father in contempt for violation of an alleged court order. whether there was sufficient evidence to restrict Mother's visitation with her children, especially S.S. from joint legal custody to sole legal custody with Father whether there was sufficient evidence to modify the custody arrangement for R.S. it improperly ordered her to pay part of the cost of R.S.'s private school education it should have imputed additional income to Father andĮ. ![]() it failed to adjust her weekly gross income to account for an after-born child ĭ. it improperly imputed income to her based upon the expected annual returns of her IRAs Ĭ. it improperly found her to be underemployed ī. whether the trial court erroneously determined her child support obligation because:Ī. We restate the issues raised by Mother as follows: We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. to Father, the trial court's visitation order regarding S.S., and its refusal to find Father in contempt of court. Mother also appeals the granting of sole legal custody of R.S. and S.S., pursuant to a petition to modify child support brought by Michael Siegel ("Father" or "Petitioner"). Spencer, Special Judgeĭebra Siegel Carmichael ("Mother" or "Respondent") appeals the trial court's calculation of her child support obligation for her children, R.S. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA DEBRA (Siegel ) CARMICHAEL, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ![]() Stone Law Office & Legal Research Robinson & Heck ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |