## Facts

- Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. (Father) and Kay Char Perkinson (Mother) married in 2004; their child (L.P.) was born in 2005.
- Father filed for dissolution in 2005; a dissolution decree entered in 2006 included property distribution and child-support provisions.
- After the decree, the parties entered an agreement approved by the trial court in 2006 in which Father waived parenting time and Mother assumed sole financial responsibility for L.P. and waived enforcement of Father’s child-support arrearage.
- The agreement also stated that if Father later sought parenting time, he would be obligated to pay any support arrearage through the approval date of the agreement.
- Father later sought to reestablish parenting time by petitions filed in 2008 and 2010; the trial court denied both requests (and related post-judgment motions).
- The intermediate appellate court reversed; the state supreme court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement exchanging a parent’s waiver of parenting time for relief from child-support obligations or arrearage enforcement is void as against public policy.
2. Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting Father from exercising any parenting time without record-based justification and without any mechanism for obtaining parenting time consistent with governing standards.

## Decision

- The court held the parenting-time/child-support “trade” agreement void as against public policy.
- The court reversed the order categorically denying Father any parenting time, concluding the total prohibition was not supported by the record under applicable standards.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s right to financial support cannot be contracted away by parents; a custodial parent holds support payments for the child’s benefit and may not bargain them off.
- Parenting time and child support are legally independent; relief from support obligations (including arrearages) may not be conditioned on surrendering parenting time, and parenting time may not be conditioned on such relief.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to tailor parenting-time orders, but restrictions—especially a total denial—must be supported by evidence and consistent with statutory and guideline limits.
- A categorical prohibition on parenting time, particularly one that effectively enforces a void agreement and provides no path toward future contact, exceeds permissible discretion absent support showing serious endangerment to the child.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated an agreement that exchanged parenting time for child-support relief and required reconsideration of parenting time under best-interest and endangerment standards, rather than enforcing an impermissible bargain.


Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013)