Brown, J.
….
Father argues that the court admitted as Respondent’s Exhibit D a document purportedly containing text messages exchanged between the parents (the “Text Messages”) “as a statement by a party-opponent” and that it “accepted [Mother’s] assertion the texts were complete and accurate in spite of her inability to describe with any clarity the process she employed to transfer them from her phone to her computer, or to print them.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. Father argues that “[w]ritings and recordings, including text messages, must be authenticated pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 901 before being admitted into evidence.” Id. at 8. Father argues that “[t]he messages do not appear to follow or flow logically and any number of them lack context” and “appear to begin in the middle of a thought or argument.” Id. at 9. Father also argues that the Text Messages “appear to have played a role in the court’s decision to modify custody,” noting that “paragraphs 5, 7, 8, and 11 of the Order granting modification make reference to, or appear to infer from testimony and evidence there is a change of circumstances relevant to communication between the parties.” Id. Father maintains that “absent the improperly admitted text messages, the evidence the court had to consider was, at best, equivocal.” Id.
Mother argues that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Text Messages, noting that Mother identified the messages as being between her and Father between March 11, 2012 and June 1, 2012, that Father identified the phone numbers as his and that of Mother, that Father testified when asked to identify the Text Messages that he did not “doubt that this isn’t, isn’t me,” and that Mother explained how she generated the document using her cell phone and a computer. Appellee’s Brief at 7.
When the substance of a text message is offered for an evidentiary purpose, the text message must be separately authenticated pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 901(a). Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Rule 901 provides that “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Absolute proof of authenticity is not required. Fry v. State, 885 N.E.2d 742, 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. When evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed to be, the item is admissible. Thomas v. State, 734 N.E.2d 572, 573 (Ind. 2000). Ind. Evidence Rule 901(b) provides “[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule” and includes:
Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
Ind. Evidence Rule 901(b)(6).
When presented with the Text Messages, Father indicated that the two phone numbers featured on the document belonged to him and Mother. When he was asked whether he recognized the Text Messages, the following exchange occurred:
A I don’t doubt that this isn’t, isn’t me. I believe I remember this right here at the beginning, there’s quite a lot here to go through . . . .
Q Just take a glance through it and see if there’s anything that sticks out and that leads you believe [sic] that’s not the action transcribed message.
A I don’t doubt that it is. I would have to go through it in more detail,
Q Do you remember making any of these calls or texts?
A I remember vaguely the first sentence. I can’t remember what the situation was though.
Q Did you folks have telephone conversations between each other during this same period of time which would have been, these texts range from March 11th through June 1st last year, did you also talk to each other on the phone at the same time?
* * * * *
A. Yes.
Q OK. So this wouldn’t be comprehensive of all the communications you had? These would just be indicative of the texts that went back and forth between the two of you?
A We did things through text as well as phone conversation.
Q OK.
A We prefer text because it’s–, we don’t really talk very well together.
Q You don’t really talk well over the phone?
A No, we don’t get along. Quite a lot of bickering so we actually preferred text.
Q And that text preference, is that your preference as well as hers or–
A I think that’s fair to say, yes.
* * * * *
Q And I’d like to ask you, is the language in the conversations still the same now as it is throughout these texts?
A Actually I think it’s safe to say that we’ve been doing better. We do have our moments but I’ve been working really hard to try to do my best to get along with her for [B.B.’s] sake.
Q OK, so you’re working hard to try to improve not only the language but the demeanor and attitude that’s portrayed in some of these?
A It’s not just me but yes, I have been working hard to not argue as much.
Transcript at 27-29.
Also, during Mother’s testimony she was presented with the Text Messages and indicated that the document contained the text messages occurring between her and Father between March and June 1st of 2012. She indicated that she created the “document by plugging [her] phone into a computer program” which “transcribed” the text messages to the document. Id. at 70. Mother’s counsel then offered into evidence the exhibit, and Father’s counsel proceeded to ask Mother preliminary questions as follows:
Q Ma’am, what program did you use to obtain these?
A I had it saved on my flash drive. It went from my cell phone straight to my lap top [sic] to my flash drive to my computer to (inaudible) .
Q Do you recall what the name of the program is?
A I still have my old cell phone that has all the things on it, Microsoft, I think.
Q So how did you obtain these printed items?
A I don’t know how the computer works. It just kind of goes through file, open, copy and paste.
Q And you’re saying this represents the entirety of all the text messages from March 11th to June 1st?
A Yes.
Q So this was generated by a program that you had on your phone?
A No.
Q OK, that’s what, that’s just what I’m trying for foundation purposes, what–
A A cord, they have a cord that goes from your phone, goes to your computer and it (inaudible) file in–
Q OK, right.
A –goes file, open.
Q And what program on your computer did you access?
A Microsoft.
Q Well, I’m not a computer expert but I think Microsoft is a big company that makes software. Can you remember the name of the program?
A It’s, it kind of just went to it, just a file that was open and just pasted it on Microsoft. I mean, it went straight from the phone to the computer (inaudible) .
Q So did you pick and choose between what texts are going to be on there, what days?
A Every text should be there. It was went through, printed and given to my lawyer.
Id. at 70-71.
Following this exchange, Father’s counsel objected to the entry of the Text Messages for lack of a proper foundation, arguing that there was no certification that it was an accurate or true copy and that he had “no idea what program this is accessed through, the reliability of it . . . .” Id. at 72. Mother’s counsel argued that “these are text messages that [Mother] said she actually observed on her phone” and that “she did not pick or choose.” Id. Mother’s counsel stated that he did not “know what could be more reliable than going from the phone itself, through a cord, to the computer, and printing.” Id. The court stated that it was “looking at it a little differently. This is a communication between these two people which would otherwise come into evidence as being, the declarant being the opposing party.” Id. at 73. The court then said: “As long as she says on oath in reviewing that this is what either I said, texted or what I received from him as texted, I think it comes in . . . .” Id. Mother then reviewed the exhibit and indicated that they were the text messages “sent to [her] or by [her] on the date specified in the document,” and the court admitted the exhibit. Id. at 75.
Also, on the second day of the hearing, Father was again asked about the Text Messages. He testified that he had reviewed the exhibit and believed it to be inaccurate, stating that “there’s stuff missing out of them and of course, it’s [Mother’s] stuff.” Id. at 204. He testified that “in some of the conversations, if you just read through them you can see that they don’t make sense.” Id.
Thus, Father does not argue that the text messages contained in the document were not exchanged between him and Mother; rather, Father’s main challenge to the Text Messages is his general belief that Mother must have deleted certain text messages in order to make her appear to be the more sympathetic figure. We note, however, that Father never directed the court’s attention to a specific part of the document where he believed that content was missing, nor did he attempt to admit evidence of any deleted text messages. As a party to the text messages, Father could have obtained a copy of the text message exchange between him and Mother on his phone, and he did not testify that a record of the text messages was unavailable to him at the time of the hearing. We also note that the second day of the hearing took place about two weeks after the first day, that Father was recalled on the second day of the hearing and testified that the exhibit, which had already been admitted into evidence, did not contain all of the text messages, but he did not offer evidence to support his claim.
Indeed, we observe that Father’s argument appears to be little more than an argument to apply the doctrine of completeness, which is a common law doctrine that “[w]hen one party introduces part of a conversation or document, the opposing party is generally entitled to have the entire conversation or entire instrument placed into evidence.” Lewis v. State, 754 N.E.2d 603, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting McElroy v. State, 553 N.E.2d 835, 839 (Ind. 1990), trans. denied), trans. denied. The doctrine of completeness has been incorporated into the Indiana Evidence Rules as Evidence Rule 106. Norton v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1028, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The rule states:
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require at that time the introduction of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously with it.
Ind. Evidence Rule 106.
The purpose of Evidence Rule 106 is to avoid misleading impressions from out-of-context statements or from the introduction of only selective parts of evidence. Lieberenz v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1242, 1248 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing 13B R. MILLER, JR., INDIANA PRACTICE § 106 at 23 (Supp. 1998)), trans. denied. The doctrine of completeness provides “context for otherwise isolated comments when fairness requires it.” Barnett v. State, 916 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Sanders v. State, 840 N.E .2d 319, 323 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. Portions of evidence not expository of nor relevant to already-introduced sections of evidence need not be admitted. Id.
The purpose of the doctrine of completeness is to allow the introduction of additional material to place incomplete, misleading evidence in its full context. Nothing in the record indicates that Father sought to submit evidence of the allegedly deleted text messages. His objection was not an attempt to have the purported remainder introduced into evidence, but rather an effort to wholly exclude the Text Messages. To the extent that he suggests that, without the purported omitted text messages, a misleading impression was created, we note that he did testify on the second day of the hearing that he believed certain text messages were not contained in the exhibit, the court heard Father’s testimony, and we cannot say that the court failed to account for such testimony.
We find that evidence was presented sufficient to support a finding that the Text Messages were what Mother claimed them to be, and that a sufficient foundation was laid for their admission, and accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the Text Messages.
….
NAJAM, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.