Baker, J.
We first acknowledge that the trial court was faced with an extremely difficult—and almost Solemnic—decision in this case. More particularly, we must determine whether the trial court properly entered an order restricting the custodial parent, appellant-petitioner, Charity Lindquist (Mother), from permitting her and former husband, appellee-respondent, Cory Lindquist’s (Father) (collectively, the parents), children to continue an unsupervised relationship with Mother’s boyfriend when Father is not otherwise entitled to be with them under the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (Guidelines). The trial court’s order noted that Mother’s relationship with her boyfriend was undermining and interfering with Father’s relationship with the children. As a result, Mother contends that her constitutional right to due process was violated along with her right of freedom of association.
After reviewing the evidence, we initially observe that the trial court’s determination that Mother was in contempt for denying Father his Christmas 2012 time must be affirmed. [Footnote omitted.] However, because there is no evidence that Mother is an unfit parent or that permitting the children to spend unsupervised time with Mother’s boyfriend violated the children’s best interests or that he posed a danger or detriment to the children, we must conclude that this portion of the order was too restrictive and, therefore, the trial court improperly determined that the children were not permitted to spend any “one on one” unsupervised time with Mother’s boyfriend. As a result, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court with instructions that it craft an order that will not deny Father the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time in accordance with the Guidelines, but also to permit the children to interact with Mother’s boyfriend on an unsupervised basis should Mother so desire, so long as Father’s relationship with the children is not undermined or thwarted.
….
Notwithstanding these pronouncements, we are confronted with a unique situation in light of the various provisions of Section I(C)(3) of the Guidelines, which provide that:
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost and without affecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.
The trial court referenced Section A of the Guidelines in its order that encourages parents to “recognize and address a child’s basic needs,” including the development . . . of meaningful relationships with other significant adults (grandparents, stepparents and other relatives) as long as these relationships do not interfere with or replace the child’s primary relationship with the parents.”
Although the evidence in this case established that Criswell has developed a positive and meaningful relationship with the children, he has no “parental right” to see and visit with the children, but Father, of course, does. On the other hand, when applying Section I(C)(3) of the Guidelines to the circumstances here, Criswell should be able to interact with the children, so long as it would be in the children’s best interests to maintain their then-existing relationship with him. There have been no allegations of abuse or neglect against Criswell, and Dr. Ann Carlson testified at the hearing that continuing his relationship with the children would be in their best interests. Tr. p. 79.
In light of these circumstances, we believe that Criswell should be able to continue seeing the children so long as his relationship with them does not undermine or damage the relationship with Father. And under Section I(C)(3) of the Guidelines, Father must first be given the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time. That said, it is apparent that the trial court’s order as it currently stands is too broad and restrictive and must, therefore, be crafted to allow Criswell to maintain his relationship with the children because there is no evidence that he either abused or neglected them and the evidence showed that it was in the children’s best interest to continue that relationship. However, the subsequent order must also reflect that Criswell’s continued relationship with the children must not interfere with or undermine Father’s right to additional parenting time in accordance with the Guidelines.
….
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions that the trial court craft an order permitting the children to maintain their relationship with Criswell and to spend unsupervised time with him because it is within the children’s best interest to do so, and so long as that relationship does not interfere with or impede Father’s opportunity to exercise his parenting time in accordance with the Guidelines.
NAJAM, J., and CRONE, J., concur.