## Facts

- Mother and Father were never married and had one child, M.P.M.W. (born 2002).
- Father petitioned to establish paternity; Mother admitted paternity. The court initially awarded Mother primary physical custody and ordered a gradual schedule of unsupervised visitation for Father because Father and the child lacked an existing relationship.
- In 2007, Father filed contempt and custody-modification pleadings alleging Mother withheld parenting time; the trial court found Mother in contempt, issued an arrest writ, awarded Father sole custody, denied Mother visitation, and deferred contempt sentencing until Mother appeared.
- Mother was arrested in July 2007. After release, she received supervised visitation; further litigation followed, including multiple contempt motions by Mother against Father.
- The trial court later authorized law enforcement to enforce Mother’s summer visitation and at one point redesignated Mother as the primary residential parent.
- On September 24, 2008, the trial court (1) found Father in contempt for failing to provide notice of out-of-state travel and for late return of the child from summer parenting time and imposed two suspended 30-day sentences; (2) imposed on Mother a two-year sentence, fully suspended on condition she not violate further court orders, for Mother’s earlier contempt; and (3) modified custody again, awarding Father primary physical custody.
- The custody-related record included findings that Mother repeatedly interfered with Father’s parenting time and engaged in extreme conduct to prevent Father’s relationship with the child, including leaving the state with the child and making abuse/neglect reports determined to be false or unsubstantiated.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody to award Father primary physical custody.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a two-year suspended sentence for Mother’s civil contempt, rendering the sanction punitive rather than coercive.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody modification awarding Father primary physical custody.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the two-year suspended contempt sentence imposed on Mother and remanded for further proceedings on the contempt sanction.
- The court applied deferential review to the custody order, declining to reweigh evidence or assess credibility where the record supported the trial court’s findings and judgment.
- As to contempt, the court held the challenged sanction exceeded permissible bounds for civil contempt because its structure and stated purpose reflected punishment rather than coercion.

## Legal Principles

- In a paternity proceeding, custody modification requires a best-interests determination and a substantial change in the relevant statutory factors, and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Appellate review of custody modifications is limited: the judgment is upheld if supported by evidence and reasonable inferences; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.
- Civil contempt sanctions must be remedial and coercive—aimed at securing compliance with court orders—rather than punitive.
- A civil contempt sanction must be structured to compel compliance (including an effective opportunity to purge through compliance); a fixed, felony-like term justified as making a party “recognize the power of the court” indicates a punitive, criminal character.
- Suspended sentences may be used in civil contempt only when they function as a compliance-forcing device rather than as punishment for past disobedience.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the custody change to Father based on evidence of Mother’s sustained interference with parenting time and disregard of court orders affecting the child’s relationship with Father, but it vacated and remanded the two-year suspended contempt sentence because its purpose and form were punitive and therefore improper for civil contempt.


In re Paternity of M.P.M.W., 908 N.E.2d 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)