SULLIVAN, J.
. . . Becker’s request is for a modification of child support based on changed circumstances due to incarceration, and so Becker argues that he is entitled to relief under Clark.
As such, the principal question here is not whether Becker is entitled to modification, but the effective date of that modification. [Footnote omitted.] Three choices are presented to us:
- Becker contends that the modification ordered by the trial court should be retroactively effective as of February 26, 1998, the date of dissolution.
- The trial court ordered the modification to be effective as of February 22, 2007, the date of this Court’s Lambert decision.
- The Court of Appeals held that the modification cannot be applied retroactively to any date prior to December 28, 2007, the date Becker filed his modification request.
A trial court has discretion to make a modification of child support relate back to the date the petition to modify is filed, or any date thereafter. Quinn v. Threlkel, 858 N.E.2d 665, 674
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Carter v. Dayhuff, 829 N.E.2d 560, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). . . . .
Nothing in Lambert or Clark suggests a contrary rule for modifications due to incarceration. We now hold that Lambert and Clark do not apply retroactively to modify child support orders already final, but only relate to petitions to modify child support granted after Lambert was decided. A trial court only has the discretion to make a modification of child support due to incarceration effective as of a date no earlier than the date of the petition to modify. Consequently, the date Becker instituted his request for relief represents the earliest date the abatement could become effective.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.