## Facts

- After dissolution, the mother received custody; the father was ordered to pay child support and granted visitation.
- The father fell behind on support; the mother filed a rule-to-show-cause petition, and the father sought to modify visitation.
- The trial court found the father in contempt for nonpayment and imposed a 180-day jail sentence, then suspended it on conditions related to his exercising regular visitation.
- The trial court also stated that if the father failed to pay child support in the future, his visitation would be terminated, reasoning that continued nonpayment would “endanger the child.”
- The father appealed provisions (1) conditioning future visitation on support payment and (2) conditioning suspension of the contempt sentence on visitation.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may prospectively terminate or condition visitation based on a noncustodial parent’s failure to pay child support, absent a best-interests showing tied to visitation.
2. Whether a trial court may condition suspension of a contempt jail sentence for nonpayment of support on the parent’s scheduling and exercising visitation.
3. Whether intertwining support enforcement and visitation in contempt and visitation orders constitutes an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the challenged portions of the order and remanded.
- The court held that visitation may not be restricted or terminated as a mechanism to enforce child support obligations.
- The court held that conditioning suspension of a contempt sentence for nonpayment on the parent’s exercise of visitation was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Child support and visitation are separate matters; a parent may not be denied visitation solely because of failure to pay support.
- Visitation is a “precious privilege” that may be restricted only as required by the child’s best interests, based on evidence that visitation itself endangers the child or seriously harms the child’s development.
- Contempt sanctions for support violations must be directed at coercing compliance with the support order; courts may not structure contempt relief in a way that improperly uses visitation or parent-child contact as a sanction or bargaining device.

## Conclusion

The appellate court rejected the use of visitation restrictions and visitation-based contempt conditions as tools to collect support, requiring that visitation limits rest on best-interests findings related to visitation and that contempt sanctions for nonpayment be tied to enforcing the support order.


Farmer v. Farmer, 735 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)