Najam, J.
Statement of the Case
Dawn Jones (“Mother”) appeals the dissolution court’s denial of her motion to modify child custody. Mother raises three issues for our review, which we restate as the following two issues:
1. Whether the dissolution court’s decision to deny Mother’s motion is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the trial court denied the parties their constitutional rights when it ordered them to work with a parenting coordinator prior to filing future motions or petitions with the court.
We affirm.
…..
Issue Two: Constitutionality of the Court’s Order for the Parties to Proceed First with the Parenting Coordinator Before Filing New Motions or Petitions with the Court
We next address Mother’s assertion that the trial court denied her her constitutional right under Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution to open courts when it ordered her to take future issues regarding custody, support, or visitation to the PC before bringing those issues to the court. Father agrees on appeal that the court’s order is erroneous in this respect.
Although we appreciate the parties’ willingness to reach an agreement, we are not bound to accept it. Our trial courts have broad discretion in the management of their dockets, and that discretion extends to limiting the filings of parties who have demonstrated an abuse of the court’s docket in the past. Cf. KS&E Sports v. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892, 905 (Ind. 2017) (“the Open Courts clause does not prohibit all conditions on access to the courts”) (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court has expressly recognized, in matters involving custody and parenting time, that our trial courts “may, in the exercise of sound discretion in discrete cases, order mediation as a prerequisite to the filing of requests for future proceedings . . . .” Fuchs v. Martin, 845 N.E.2d 1038, 1042 (Ind. 2006).
And, here, the trial court found as follows:
87. The Court is FIRMLY convinced that any conflicts that have arisen in this case are due to the behaviors of the parents, primarily Mother, and that if this high drama would stop, the boys could thrive under the current schedule.
88. Mother simply has not given the Court’s original order a chance to work.
89. She has not cooperated with the PC.
90. She refuses to co-parent with Father.
91. Until such time as she can demonstrate to the Court[] that[,] despite her best efforts and her cooperation, the current arrangement is not beneficial to the children, the Court will not enter an order modifying custody or visitation.
92. In that light and pursuant to the Court’s prior orders, the PC remains appointed in this cause and the parties are still under an obligation to cooperate with her and seek her counsel.
93. The Court cautions Mother that any further refusal to cooperate with the PC, any further actions such as ignoring the PC or refusing to follow her recommendations, could result in severe sanctions.
94. This Court will not tolerate further behavior of this nature.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 45-46. Moreover, the court did not prohibit the parties from access to future court filings. Rather, the court imposed “a prerequisite to the filing of requests for future proceedings,” Fuchs, 845 N.E.2d at 1042, when it instructed as follows:
114. Effective as of the date of this ORDER, prior to the filing of any petition by either party to modify custody, support, visitation, regarding summer parenting schedules, regarding additional parenting time, or similar matters, the parties must first engage the services of the PC and cooperate with her requests for information and/or meetings.
115. Moreover, the parties must make a good faith effort to comply with the recommendations of the PC or, if the party believes the PC’s recommendation is in contravention of the law, to explain in detail to the PC why and to work out a compromise.
116. If, after all of this, the parties still do not agree with the recommendations of the PC or they believe them to be in contravention of law, the parties may file a petition with the Court asking the Court to make a final decision on the issue.
117. Any such petition SHALL explain in great and exacting detail, citing legal authority where appropriate, what specific recommendation of the PC they disagree with, why they disagree with it, what they have done to resolve the issue (citing specific discussions they have had with the PC and the opposing party), and shall provide to the Court a viable alternative compromise to resolve the matter. 1
18. The Court will not consider any complaints in the nature of a general disagreement with the PC’s decision.
119. With regard to any petitions filed with this Court that the Court deems frivolous, cumulative, and/or unfounded, including those that do not comply with the above, the Court will assess costs and attorney fees to the party filing such a petition.
120. Moreover, in any instance where the Court finds that a party flagrantly ignored the orders of the Court or the PC, the Court will impose sanctions.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 48.
Mother’s argument that the trial court erred does not challenge the factual basis for the above findings. Rather, she simply asserts that any restriction on her right to file a motion for modification is per se contrary to law. Mother is incorrect. And, insofar as Mother asserts that the trial court improperly delegated its judicial power by requiring the parties to first try to resolve their disputes out of court with the PC, Mother’s argument is not supported by cogent reasoning, and we do not consider it. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a).
Conclusion
In sum, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to modify custody.
Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.