Bradford, J.
Case Summary
This consolidated appeal involves three separate challenges to the constitutionality of statutory authority which authorizes a trial court to order a divorced parent to contribute to his or her child’s post-secondary educational expenses. On appeal, Appellant-Petitioner Lisa Gill, Appellant-Respondent Jasen Simcox, and Appellant-Petitioner Paul King (collectively, “the Appellants”) contend that such statutory authority is unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) the statute violates a divorced parent’s equal protection right as it places the divorced parent in a different position than married parents and (2) the statute interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to determine his or her child’s upbringing and education.
On cross-appeal, Appellee-Petitioner Amy S. Likes contends that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) crediting Jasen Simcox for certain nonconforming child support payments and (2) basing Jasen Simcox’s post-secondary education obligation on the cost of a public university rather than the cost of the private university that their daughter attends.
Upon review, we conclude that the Indiana Supreme Court has clearly held that statutory authority allowing a trial court to order a divorced parent to contribute to his child’s post-secondary educational expenses is constitutional. As for the issues presented on cross-appeal, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts in each of the individual matters.
….
Appellants essentially ask us to overturn the Indiana Supreme Court’s longstanding decision in Neudecker. However, it is well-established that as Indiana’s intermediate appellate court, we are bound to follow Indiana Supreme Court precedent. See Sedam v. 2JR Pizza Enterprises, LLC, 61 N.E.3d 1191, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (providing that it is not the role of the Court of Appeals to reconsider or declare invalid decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court and that the Court of Appeals is bound by precedent of the Indiana Supreme Court until it is changed either by that court or by legislative enactment). As such, we decline the Appellants’ request that we overturn the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Neudecker. [Footnote omitted.]
….
Conclusion
In sum, we are bound by the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision with regard to the constitutionality of statutory authority allowing a trial court to order a divorced parent to contribute to their child’s post-secondary educational expenses. In addition, with respect to Jasen Simcox, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) crediting him for nonconforming child support payments made to Amy Likes or (2) basing his financial obligation for T.S.’s post-secondary education on the cost of a public university rather than a private university.
In this consolidated appeal, the judgments of the trial courts are affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.