In Re the Marriage of: Angela R. Bello, Appellant-Petitioner,
Clement A. Bello, Appellee-Respondent.
from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable John M.T.
Chavis, Judge The Honorable Caryl Dill, Magistrate Trial
Court Cause No. 49D12-0902-DR-4946
Attorney for Appellant Bryan L. Ciyou Darlene R. Seymour
Ciyou & Dixon, PC Indianapolis, Indiana.
Attorney for Appellee Andrea L. Ciobanu Indianapolis,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Petitioner, Angela R. Bello (Mother), appeals the
trial court's denial of her motion for relief from the
trial court's Order finding her in contempt and from the
trial court's award of attorney's fees in favor of
Appellee-Respondent, Clement A. Bello (Father).
Mother presents us with one issue on appeal, which we restate
as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial
Rules 60(B) and 60(C).
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and Father were married on May 22, 2005. During the
marriage, one child, K.B., was born on July 1, 2007. On
November 23, 2010, a decree of dissolution of marriage was
issued, awarding Mother sole physical custody of K.B., with
the parties sharing legal custody. The trial court granted
Father parenting time with an overnight stay every Wednesday
and alternating weekends. Father was entitled to alternating
weeks during the summer and all other parenting time would
follow the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Father was
ordered to pay a weekly child support obligation of $75.
On February 18, 2016, Father filed a verified motion for rule
to show cause, modification in child custody/parenting time,
and reimbursement of attorney's fees. In his motion,
Father contended that Mother was deliberately "hindering
the [F]ather-son relationship" and interfering with his
parenting time. (Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 28). After
a hearing on Father's motion, the trial court issued its
Order on June 28, 2016, concluding, in pertinent part:
3. The child was in preschool or day care at the time of the
dissolution and the decree was silent on the issue of
extracurricular activities and the expense related thereto.
However, the term "upbringing" as set forth in the
decree is very broad and all-encompassing. Therefore,
decisions regarding health, education, religion and
extracurricular activities should ...