Felix, J.
Statement of the Case
Joel Stafford (“Father”) and Laura Stafford (“Mother”) were married and had three children together. In 2023, Mother filed a petition for dissolution. The trial court issued a dissolution decree awarding Mother primary physical custody and granting Father parenting time consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines absent overnight stays. Father appeals and presents a single issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its parenting time decision.
We reverse.
….
To address Father’s claim, we must first decide whether the decision regarding overnights is a restriction on Father’s parenting time or a mere deviation from the Parenting Time Guidelines….
After a review of precedent, it appears we have not answered whether eliminating all overnights amounts to a restriction on parenting time. In Clary-Gosh v. Gosh, a mother argued that the trial court’s decision to eliminate overnight visits on school nights was a restriction on her parenting time. 26 N.E.3d 986, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We concluded that this modification was not a restriction because the end result was parenting time that was consistent with guidelines, meaning mother’s parenting time “was not reduced below the minimum time described in the Parenting Time Guidelines.” Id. More recently, we have held that “[n]ot every deviation below the minimum parenting time recommended by the Guidelines is a ‘restriction’ of parenting time requiring a finding of endangerment or impairment.” Roper, 223 N.E.3d at 737; see also Randolph, 210 N.E.3d at 898. Rather, “[p]arenting time rights are ‘restricted’ when they are ‘curtailed in an unreasonable manner.’” Roper, 223 N.E.3d at 737 (quoting In re Paternity of J.K., 184 N.E.3d 658, 667 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)). For example, “[a]n order for supervision of parenting time is a restriction required to be justified by a finding of endangerment or impairment.” Id. (citing Hatmaker v. Hatmaker, 998 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)).
….
Here, while the provisional order provided Father parenting time consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (including overnights), in the dissolution decree, the trial court eliminated all overnights. Father’s parenting time is now limited to being with his children for less than 12 hours per parenting time opportunity. The trial court reduced Father’s parenting time below the minimum amount suggested by the Guidelines and did not provide any additional visitation to account for the removal of all overnights. As Father points out, the exclusion of all overnights limits both his time with Children but also the nature of activities they can do in the shortened timeframe. We conclude that the elimination of all overnights is a “significant deviation from the Guidelines,” Randolph, 210 N.E.3d at 899, and that Father’s parenting time rights were “curtailed in an unreasonable manner,” Roper, 223 N.E.3d at 737 (quoting In re Paternity of J.K., 184 N.E.3d at 667). Thus, the trial court restricted Father’s parenting time rights.
Now we must determine whether the trial court provided the requisite findings to restrict Father’s parenting time. The trial court did not make any findings that Father’s parenting time would endanger Children’s physical health or significantly impair Children’s emotional development. The findings mention that Children feared Father, but this falls short of the findings required by statute. See I.C. § 31-17-4-1. Additionally, the decision to entirely remove all overnights appears to be related to Father’s failure to comply with the trial court’s orders. We remind the trial court that it should not conflate a parent’s lack of cooperation with the best interests determination. See In re Paternity M.P.M.W., 908 N.E.2d 1205, 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (affirming custody modification where the trial court punished mother for violating a court order but also based its decision on proper considerations). We conclude that Father made a prima facie showing that the trial court abused its discretion, and we reverse the trial court’s parenting time decision.
Reversed.
Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur