MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] In 2009, Casandra M. Johnson (Anders) (“Mother”) and Kristopher Spindler (“Father”) had a child out of wedlock: A.S. (the “Child”). A few months after the Childs birth, Mother and Father (collectively, “Parents”) established paternity in Father. In 2015, the trial court entered an order setting forth the details of Parents’ parenting time. In 2022, Mother filed a petition to modify Fathers parenting time. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Mothers petition and affirmed its 2015 order. Mother now appeals and presents two issues for our review, which we revise and restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court clearly erred when it denied Mothers petition to modify parenting time.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In March 2009, Mother gave birth to the Child, and shortly thereafter, paternity was established in Father. Over the years, Parents submitted agreed orders to the trial court concerning parenting time, child support, and other matters. Most recently in March 2015, the trial court entered Parents agreed order on parenting time (the “2015 Order”), which provided in relevant part that
2․ Father may exercise parenting time every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
3. The parties shall follow the 2013 [I]ndiana Parenting Time Guidelines, as to extended summer parenting time, except that the Father shall exercise two additional weeks, above his one-half, during the childs summer break and the Father shall notify the mother of the selection of his weeks during the summer by April 1st of each year. ․
Appellees App. Vol. II at 2.
[4] On September 7, 2022, Mother filed her “Petition to Modify Parenting Time,” alleging that “there has been a change in circumstances in that the Father, Kristopher T. Spindlers current circumstances and work schedule make the current parenting time schedule no longer in the childs best interest.” Appellants App. Vol. II at 25. The trial court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (the “GAL”), who filed a written report with recommendations on May 5, 2023. On August 10 and 23, 2023, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Mothers petition. On October 27, 2023, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it denied Mothers petition as well as affirmed the 2015 Order. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Mother challenges the trial courts denial of her petition to modify parenting time. Because the trial court entered findings and conclusions sua sponte, we review the issues covered thereby under the clearly erroneous standard and determine “whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind 2016) (citing In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). “Any issue not covered by the findings is reviewed under the general judgment standard, meaning a reviewing court should affirm based on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. at 123–24 (citing S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287).
[6] Parenting time decisions require us to “give foremost consideration to the best interests of the child.” Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied). “[T]here is a well-established preference in Indiana ‘for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.’ ” Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 124 (quoting In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178, 178 (Ind. 1993)).
Appellate courts “are in a poor position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the significance of the evidence.” Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Brickley v. Brickley, 247 Ind. 201, 204, 210 N.E.2d 850, 852 (1965)). “On appeal it is not enough that the evidence might support some other conclusion, but it must positively require the conclusion contended for by appellant before there is a basis for reversal.” Id. “Appellate judges are not to reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness credibility, and the evidence should be viewed most favorably to the judgment.” Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011) (citations omitted).
Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 124. Furthermore, we accept as true any findings which Mother does not challenge on appeal. See R.M. v. Ind. Dept of Child Servs., 203 N.E.3d 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992)). Here, Mother challenges only four findings, so we accept as true the other 44 findings.
[7] Mother argues that Findings 20, 21, 22, and 25 are unsupported by the evidence.
(20) [W]hile certain witnesses produced evidence that the Respondent/Father had terse and conflict-laden communications with them during their romantic relationships, no witness established a history or pattern of conflict[-]laden or angry communication by the Father to/with the [C]hild.
(21) [T]he [GAL] indicated that, “There is no way for me to confirm if Kristopher is ‘verbally and emotionally abusive’ ” to the [C]hild. She further confirmed that the anxiety issues of the Respondent/Father began at the time of [the Child]’s birth and were not recently occurring.
(22) [T]he [GAL] testified that the [C]hild did not complaint to her about any verbal or emotional abuse by the Respondent/Father.
* * *
(25) [T]he Respondent/Father does not have a history of missing parenting time.
Appellants App. Vol. II at 16–17.
[8] Even if Mother is correct that the evidence does not support those four findings, the 44 unchallenged findings support the trial courts conclusions that it is not in the Childs best interests to modify parenting time. For instance, the trial court made the following relevant findings that Mother does not challenge on appeal:
(19) [N]o witness of the Petitioner/Mother provided any current information as to how the Fathers anxiety affected his present activities or parent/child relationship; and each witness, including the Petitioner/Mother, was able to testify only as to the happenings of their previous relationship with the Respondent/Father.
* * *
(24) [T]he Respondent/Father has historically, consistently, and predictably utilized the parenting time provided to him in earlier Court Orders and cultivated a positive relationship with his son.
* * *
(26) [T]he Respondent/Father historically exercised his parenting time in the home of his mother and not in his own apartment.
* * *
(28) [U]ntil the Petitioner/Mother unilaterally determined to limit and diminish the parenting time of the Father, after her receipt of the current GAL report, the Respondent/Father regularly exercised his parenting time.
(29) [A]fter the Petitioner/Mother disallowed the Fathers parenting time, the Father continued to text the [C]hild to attempt to maintain contact with him.
(30) [T]he Petitioner/Mother ․ wrongfully empowered the [C]hild to determine when and how he would respond to and engage with his father, the Respondent.
(31) [T]he Petitioner/Mother has not encouraged [the Child] to maintain a relationship with his father, the Respondent.
* * *
(34) [The Childs paternal aunt] testified that the actions of the Petitioner/Mother in limiting the Fathers time with their son also had negative effect on her relationship with her nephew and a negative effect on the relationship between her children and their cousin, [the Child].
* * *
(36) [T]he current employment schedule of the Respondent/Father does not preclude him from exercising parenting time pursuant to the current Order of this Court.
* * *
(38) [U]ntil the Respondent/Fathers recent divorce from Jessica Graham, he and the Petitioner/Mother had a largely positive relationship with very little disagreement or tension.
(39) [D]uring and after the Respondent/Fathers recent divorce from Jessica Graham, the Petitioner/Mother and Jessica became friends, maintained regular communication, and engaged in individual litigation with [Father].
Appellants App. Vol. II at 16–19.
[9] These unchallenged findings support the trial courts conclusion that modifying parenting time is not in the Childs best interests. Nevertheless, Mother also contends that the trial courts order actually increases Fathers parenting time because Parents allegedly had informally modified parenting time after the 2015 Order. However, Mother placed parenting time before the trial court when she asked the court to decrease Fathers parenting time. The trial court determined that parenting time as set forth in the 2015 Order was in the Childs best interests. We cannot say the trial courts denial of Mothers petition to modify parenting was clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the trial court on all issues raised.
[10] Affirmed.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Felix
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Bradford concur.
Altice, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.