The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines Revision Project Is Continuing

The Domestic Relations Committee posted minute summaries from their last two meetings.  This post will discuss some of the items noted in the summaries which are pertinent to the ongoing review of the parenting time guidelines (and some regarding the child support calculator).  My previous posts regarding this review are here and here.


At the November 2010 meeting members of the committee completed review of suggested revisions concerning "scheduled parenting time to occur as planned," in other words, how to enforce and encourage parenting time orders to be followed.  Committee members also discussed the effect of amendments on existing parenting time orders.


The following areas will be discussed at the next meeting: (a) Presume More Time for Noncustodial Parent, (NCP)/Protection of NCP rights / Overnights / Overnights for Infants and (b) Equal Parenting Time. The "next meeting" would have presumably already occurred as the meeting schedule is Friday, January 21, February 18, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center, as well as in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.  

The October 2010 minutes note that a draft of rule related to Parenting Coordination was circulated for discussion among the committee members.  The draft is not available for public comment/review at this time.  I have written about parenting coordination in previous posts.  I doubt parenting coordination would be given it own rule in the new Indiana parenting time guidelines, but I would expect a reference to parenting coordination in the guidelines commentary.  

Finally, at the November 2010 meeting, the committee noted the following areas of need as to the child support calculator: (1) The addition of a social security disability calculation to all calculators, (2) A quick input calculator for high volume courts, and (3) The development of a separate “income calculator” for the purposes of adding together various sources of income of parents for use in the child support rules and guidelines.

Indiana Relocation Law - Moving With A Child In Indiana

A few years ago the laws regarding relocation changed drastically. Formerly, there was a only a duty to file a notice of relocation if you were moving 100 miles away, and only the custodial parent had that obligation. However, now anyone who has a parenting time or visitation order (including individuals who may have grandparent or third-party visitation rights) must file and serve upon the other party a notice of intent to relocate and they must do so when ever they relocate. There is no distance restriction for this. For example, if they move to the apartment across the street they must file and serve upon the other party a notice of intent to relocate.


The notice must be filed and served 90 days before the parent intends to relocate the children, and must contain the following information: the intended address of the new residence; the home telephone number of the new residence; any other applicable telephone number for the relocating individual; the date that the relocating individual intends to move; a brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child; a proposal for a revised schedule of parenting time with the child; a statement that a parent must file an objection to the relocation of the child with the court not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice; statement that a nonrelocating individual may file a petition to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order.

After filing and serving this notice the nonrelocating parent can file a motion objecting to the relocation of the children. Then, the relocation is contested and must be set for hearing.

Over the past two years the Court of Appeals has issued opinions illustrating how the relocation laws should work when applied. The most recent case is here. The Court of Appeals described the burden in a relocation case:
If the non-relocating parent files a motion to prevent relocation, the relocating parent must first prove that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. If this burden is met, the non-relocating parent must then prove that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

When considering whether the relocation is in the best interest of the child the court will consider the following factors:

(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.
(2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating individual to
exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating
individual and the child through suitable parenting time and grandparent
visitation arrangements, including consideration of the financial circumstances
of the parties.
(4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the relocating
individual, including actions by the relocating individual to either promote or
thwart a nonrelocating individual‘s contact with the child.
(5) The reasons provided by the:
(A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and
(B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of the child.

While the new relocation laws are complex and onerous, the effect of the law has been positive in that relocations must now be litigated before they occur. Furthermore, the procedure involved is now well-defined.

If you are going to be involved in a relocation or custody dispute you need an attorney. In this case the Court of Appeals stated:

We encourage parties facing issues involving the custody of children to obtain counsel to aid in the litigation of custody disputes. Because the court's order has such a profound effect on the lives of the parties and their children, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of presenting sufficient evidence and developing an adequate record.

To discuss this further please contact me. For more on information on custody or relocation disputes, see all custody blog entries here.

An Indiana Law that Recognizes Domestic Partnerships? Proposed Rules For Family Proceedings

The Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure for Public Comment has published proposed rule amendments for public comment.  Comments for the proposed amendments are due by March 25, 2011.  One rule titled "Rules for Family Proceedings" is particularly interesting.  The rule would provide procedures for consolidating multiple case involving the same family with one court/judge. 


The rule would apply to cases involving individuals in the same "family", in the broadest sense.  It is worth noting that as the Indiana state legislature is considering a constitutional amendment which would ban the recognition of civil unions and anything "substantially similar to marriage", this proposed rule, by definition, would apply to individuals living in a "domestic partnership".

This rule would help the problem of different courts/judges entering orders that affect the same family.  For instance, if a guardianship and a divorce proceeding were concurrently pending and involved the same family, this rule would provide procedure for the two (2) actions to be heard by the same court/judge.  Presently, this type of consolidation can only occur on motion of one of the parties or the court.  Having a more predictable procedure to follow in these circumstances would be a welcome change.  


However, with this procedure the parties right to move for a change judge may be limited.  The proposed amendment limits the right to seek a change of venue or a change of judge, as follows:  


D. Designation by Court of Intent to Use Family Procedures and Change of Judge for Cause. Within fifteen (15) days after notice is sent that a case has been selected to be heard using Family Procedures, a party may object for cause to the designation or selection of a party’s case.
Once notice is sent to the parties that a case has been selected to be heard using Family Procedures, no motion for change of venue from the judge may be granted except to the extent permitted by Indiana Trial Rule 76. A motion for change of venue from the judge in any matters being heard in a court using Family Procedures, or any future cases joined in the court after the initial selection of cases, shall be granted only for cause. If a special judge is appointed, all current and future cases in the court proceeding may be assigned to the special judge.


This proposed amendment would arguably change that presently, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 76, in a divorce or paternity case, each party is entitled to one (1) change of judge, without cause, as a matter of right.  This is a right commonly used in post-decree modifications and enforcements of custody, parenting time or child support orders. In this regard, the proposed rule amendment would be a significant change to present procedure. 

Click here for all of the proposed rule amendments and to comment on the proposed rule.