Indiana Courts - Family Procedures Rule- Rule 81.1

This will be an odd posting.  I am posting this to encourage you to look at another online article.

The online publication Indiana Court Times posted an article on a new rule, Indiana Rule 81.1, Family Procedures.  I previously posted regarding this new rule, here.

The article, Trial Rule 81.1 Procedures for Cases Involving Family or Household Members, sums up the purpose of the new rule as follows:

 Under certain conditions, Trial Rule 81.1 allows a judge to use “Family Procedures” and exercise jurisdiction over all cases involving the same family or household (as defined). Family Procedures are defined in the rule as the coordination of proceedings and processes, and information sharing among cases in a court or courts involving family or household members. The goal of the new rule is to avoid uninformed or inconsistent rulings in multiple cases involving one family or household and therefore better serve children and families in our courts.

I think that this rule will help the problem of different courts/judges entering orders that affect the same family.  For example, 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.  Having a more predictable procedure to follow in these circumstances will be a welcome change.

The Indiana Court Times article points out the use of the new rule comes with some anticipated concerns as well.  Such as the potential to skew a court’s statistics, confusion as to the burden and proof, confusion parties on deadlines for when to file appeals and other pleadings, as well as confidentiality of the records in cases joined.

If this rule interests you I encourage you to review the Indiana Court Times article. I encourage you to follow the Indiana Court Times, in general.  It is a great resource for Indiana legal news.

To discuss this further please contact me. 

Child Support Terminates At Age 19 - Indiana Child Support Law 2012

Effective July 1, 2012 Indiana child support law will change. The age of emancipation will be lowered from 21 to 19 years of age.  This change  has been rumored for couple of years and the General Assembly voted to amend the statutes pertaining to emancipation.  While child support will terminate at 19, education support orders for college costs, will continue to be available by petition until the child is 21.  The full text of the statutes affected is after the break, below. 

It will be interesting to see how college support orders are treated in light of these changes.  For instance, if a 19 year-old adult child is living in one parent's home while attending school, in lieu of child support, would a judge be willing to have the other parent contribute to the child's room and board, health care costs, and other educational costs such items as transportation, car insurance, clothing, entertainment and incidental expenses, as part of an educational support order?  If so, how is this different than child support?

To discuss these issues further please contact me. 

For more regarding child support see other posts here.

SECTION 1. IC 31-14-11-18 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 18. (a) The duty to support a child under this article (or IC 31-6-6.1 before its repeal), which does not include support for educational needs, ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) nineteen (19) years of age unless either of the following conditions occurs:
        (1) The child is emancipated before the child becomes twenty-one (21) nineteen (19) years of age. If this occurs, the child support, except for educational needs, terminates at the time of emancipation. However, an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
        (2) The child is incapacitated. If this occurs, the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court.
    (b) A child who is receiving child support under an order issued before July 1, 2012, may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age.
    (c) A child who is receiving child support under an order issued after June 30, 2012, may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age.

SOURCE: IC 31-16-6-6; (12)SE0018.1.2. -->     SECTION 2. IC 31-16-6-6, AS AMENDED BY P.L.80-2010, SECTION 30, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 6. (a) The duty to support a child under thischapter, which does not include support for educational needs, ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) nineteen (19) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs:
        (1) The child is emancipated before becoming twenty-one (21) nineteen (19) years of age. In this case the child support, except for the educational needs outlined in section 2(a)(1) of this chapter, terminates at the time of emancipation, although an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
        (2) The child is incapacitated. In this case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court.
        (3) The child:
            (A) is at least eighteen (18) years of age;
            (B) has not attended a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution for the prior four (4) months and is not enrolled in a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution; and
            (C) is or is capable of supporting himself or herself through employment.
        In this case the child support terminates upon the court's finding that the conditions prescribed in this subdivision exist. However, if the court finds that the conditions set forth in clauses (A) through (C) are met but that the child is only partially supporting or is capable of only partially supporting himself or herself, the court may order that support be modified instead of terminated.
    (b) For purposes of determining if a child is emancipated under subsection (a)(1), if the court finds that the child:
        (1) is on active duty in the United States armed services;
        (2) has married; or
        (3) is not under the care or control of:
            (A) either parent; or
            (B) an individual or agency approved by the court;
the court shall find the child emancipated and terminate the child support.

*this bill is up for action by Governor Daniels on March 19, 2012.

Indiana Relocation Law - Relocation and Custody Law in Indiana

This posting summarizes the factors and standard  Indiana courts use to decide a relocation case.

In 2006, the Indiana General Assembly added to the Family Law Title of the Indiana Code an entire chapter concerning the relocation of a custodial parent. See Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2.  This new chapter was summarized by our Supreme Court in Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind.2008).


“Relocation” is “a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least sixty (60) days,” and no longer requires a move of 100 miles or out of state. Id. at 1255-56.  A “relocating individual” is someone who “has or is seeking: (1) custody of a child; or (2) parenting time with a child; and intends to move the individuals principal residence.” Id. at 1256.  A “nonrelocating parent” is someone “who has, or is seeking: (1) custody of the child; or (2) parenting time with the child; and does not intend to move the individuals principal residence.”

Upon motion by either parent, the court must hold a hearing to review and modify the custody “if appropriate.” Id.  Per this statute, the trial court may, but is not required to, order a change of custody upon relocation.  Id. at 1253.  In determining whether to modify a custody order, the court is directed to consider the factors set out in I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b), which are specific to relocation.  Id.  I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b) states the factors as:

(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 non-relocating individual’s contact with the child;
(5) the relocating parent’s reasons for relocating the child and the nonrelocating parent’s    reasons for opposing the relocation of the child; and
(6) other factors affecting the best interests of the child.  
I.C.  § 31-17-2.2-1(b).


Under I.C. § 31-17-2.2, there are two ways to object to a proposed relocation: a motion to modify a custody order under I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b), or a motion to prevent the relocation of a child under I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(a).  Swadner v. Swadner, 897 N.E.2d 966, 976 (Ind. App.2008), See Baxendale at 1256.  In regards to a motion to prevent the relocation of a child, Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-5 specifically provides that:

(a) Not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice from the relocating individual under IC 31-14-13-10 or this chapter, a nonrelocating parent may file a motion seeking a temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation of a child.
(b) On the request of either party, the court shall hold a full evidentiary hearing to grant or deny a relocation motion under subsection (a).
(c) The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason.
(d) If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof under subsection (c), the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

If the non-relocating parent does not file a motion to prevent relocation, then the relocating parent with custody of the child may relocate. Baxendale at 1256, see I.C. § 31-17.2.2-5(e).  If the non-relocating parent does file a motion to prevent relocation, then the relocating parent must first prove that “the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason.” Swadner, 897 N.E.2d at 976 (quoting I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(c)). If this burden is met, then the non-relocating parent must prove that “the proposed relocation is not in the best interests of the child.” Id. (quoting I.C. § 31-17-2.2-5(d)).  Under either a motion to prevent relocation or a motion to modify custody, if the relocation is made in good faith “both analyses ultimately turn on the best interests of the child.” Swadner, 897 N.E.2d at 976.

In general then, the court must consider the financial impact of relocation on the affected parties and the motivation for the relocation in addition to the effects on the child, parents and others identified in Ind.Code § 31-17-2-8, which governs initial child custody orders in accordance with the best interests of the child, which factors include:

(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parent or parents.
        (3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at     least fourteen years of age.                   
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parent or parents;
(B) the child's sibling; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.
(5) The child's adjustment to the child's:
(A) home;
(B) school; and
(C) community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.  
I.C § 31-17-2-8.

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