Pyle, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven Engelking (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s dissolution decree finding that he was the parent of two children born during his marriage to Amy Engelking (“Mother”) and was required to pay child support.
We affirm.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in determining that Father should pay child support as the parent of two children conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Mother.
….
Here, Mother testified that Father knew of the artificial inseminations that led to the conception of both children, helped her conduct research to determine the paraphernalia used to facilitate the first artificial insemination, talked with S.P. and his wife about the use of S.P.’s sperm as a component of both inseminations, and consented to both inseminations. She also testified that Father saved the paraphernalia for the second insemination so that the first child would not be an only child. She further testified that Father supported the children during the marriage, exercised his visitation rights during most of the lengthy period between the filing of the petition for dissolution and the final hearing, and claimed the oldest child on his tax return.
Father is asking us to disregard Mother’s testimony and credit his testimony that he did very few of the things attributed to him by Mother. Thus, he argues that he did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the artificial inseminations. Assigning credibility is not our function, and we reject Father’s invitation to do so. The trial court’s findings are supported by Mother’s testimony, and the findings support the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that each child was a child of marriage. Accordingly, both Father and Mother “have an obligation to support the child[ren].” See Levin, 645 N.E.2d at 605. [Footnote omitted.]
Affirmed.
ROBB, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.