Thoughtful Guidance From Skilled Attorneys

Major Changes in Law Regarding Relocation when Custody, Parenting Time, and Visitation Involved

| Jul 23, 2020 | Firm News

MAJOR CHANGES IN INDIANA LAW ON NOTICE OF RELOCATION, IN TIMING, WHO MUST BE NOTIFIED, AND NOW RESPONSE REQUIRED.

Senate Enrolled Act No. 292, effective July 1, 2019, amends the relocation notification law involving custody, parenting time and visitation of children. The bill will affect the following citations: IC 31-9IC 31-14; IC 31-15; and IC 31-17. The changes the requirements of the notice of intent to relocate as well as the contact information a party is required to share with another party subject to the case. The new law will also require a response to a notice of relocation even if a party is not objecting. A summary of the changes are as follows:

Changes for Requirement of filing Notices of Intent to Relocate:

  1. A grandparent with visitation rights under IC 31-17-5 is required to comply with IC 31-17-2.2.
  2. IC 31-17-2.2-1(b): a relocating individual is not required to file a notice of intent to move with the clerk if:

(1)   The relocation has been addressed by a prior court order, including a court order relieving the relocating individual of the duty to file a notice;

(2)   The relocation will either result in the decrease in the distance between the relocating individual’s residence and nonrelocating individual’s residence or result in an increase of not more than twenty (20) miles in the distance between the relocating and nonrelocating individual’s residence and allow the child to remain in the child’s current school. [1]

Changes to the time requirement to file a Notice of Intent to Relocate:

  1. An individual is required to file and serve notice of relocation upon each nonrelocating individual no later than 30 days before the date of the intended relocation or no more than 14 days after the relocating individual knows of the relocation, whichever is sooner.
  2. An individual is required to send the notice to any nonrelocating individual who is NOT a party to the action by registered or certified mail not later than 30 days before the date of the relocation or not more than 14 days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner.
  3. A nonrelocating parent must file a response[2] regarding relocation with the court not later than 20 days after service of the notice.

Relocating Individual is required to provide the following information:

  1. The intended new residence, including the address and mailing address, if different;
  2. All telephone numbers for the relocating individual;
  3. The date of move;
  4. A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child;
  5. A statement that the relocating individual either does or does not believe that a revision of parenting or grandparent visitation is necessary.
  6. A statement that a nonrelocating parent must file a response regarding the relocation of the child with the court not later than (20) days after receipt service of the notice.
  7. The following statements: a statement that a party may file a petition requesting an order to prevent the temporary or permanent relocation of a child and a statement that the nonrelocating individual may file a motion to modify custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order.
  8. A statement that all existing order for custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order remain in effect until modification by the court.

Factors the court must take into account:

Upon notice of relocation and request for hearing, the court shall consider the following to either allow or restrain the relocation of a child and to review and modify, if appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation, or support order:

  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.

  1. Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

Burden of Proof for Relocation:

A relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof under IC 31-17-2.2-5(e), then the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

Gold v. Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836,  Father appealed the trial court’s approving Mother’s relocation to Atlanta and denying his Motion to Modify. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts order determining evidence supported finding that Mother demonstrated a good faith, legitimate reason for relocating out of the state with the child and that the trial court’s denial of father’s request to modify the physical custody of the child was not erroneous.

Father filed an objection to Mother’s Notice of Intent to Relocation and in response to the Objection the Court set the matter for hearing and Ordered Mother to appear. Mother filed a Motion to Continue, but the court denied the continuance based on Mother’s non-compliance. Mother appeared in court and the court reset the matter to allow the parties to negotiate an agreement. No agreement was reached. Father did not have parenting time after Mother’s move. Upon Father’s Motion, the trial court conferred with the parties and issued and ordered for Father’s Holiday Parenting Time. Father filed a motion to modify the child’s legal and physical custody. Father and Mother were unable to cooperate to work out a post-relocation parenting time plan, so on two occasions the court had convene the parties and issue two additional orders to designate Father’s spring break and summer parenting time.

That more than a year after the move the Court held a hearing on Father’s objection, accepting only evidence on the issue of whether Mother’s relocation was made in good faith and for legitimate reason. The court determined that Mother had satisfied her burden of proof. Before the Child’s fifth birthday, the trial court conducted a hearing on the remaining relocation issues, such as the child’s best interest and modification of custody. The Court issued a final order finding father had failed to establish that the relocation was not in the child’s best interest and denied Father’s Objection and his motion to modify physical custody. The trial court did modify legal custody to be shared joint. Additionally, as contempt sanction for Mother’s obstruction of Father’s parenting time, the court ordered Mother to pay $2,000.00 of his attorney fees.

In this case The Court of Appeals sided with the trial court that Mother provided evidence that her relocation was made in good faith and for legitimate reason (closer to family members and higher paying job). Father argued that Mother provided inadequate notice and her true reason for relocation was to inhibit his relationship with the child. The Court of Appeals agreed that Father’s evidence demonstrated that Mother moved prior to the court’s approval and that she withheld parenting time from December 2010 through December 2011. One of the factors the court can consider is noncompliance and obstruction of parenting time, IC 31-17-2.2-1(b)(4)[3]. “First, the relocation statute provides a distinct remedy for a parent’s failure to provide proper notice: the trial court may grant a temporary restraining order to prohibit the relocation or order that the child be returned to the non-relocating parent.” Gold v. Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836 (2014) (citing I.C. § 31-17-2.2-6(a))[4]. The Court of Appeals acknowledges that the trial court noted Mother “moved without appropriate notice and opportunity for [Father] to be accorded a hearing” However, Father did not request nor did the trial court independently order Mother to be compelled to return the child to Indiana pending the final hearing. Gold v. Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836 (2014) (citing Appellant’s App. p. 71).

IC 31-9-2-83, is amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 83. “noncustodial parent”, for the purposes of IC 31-14-13-10, IC 31-14-15, IC 31-16-6-1.5, and IC 31-17-4, means the parent who is not the custodial parent.

Sec. 83 no longer applies to “noncustodial parent” as IC 31-14-13-10 will be repealed affective July 1, 2019.

It will also amend the definition of a “nonrelocating individual” for the purposes of IC 31-17-2.2. Previously, pursuant to IC 31-9-2-84.6, a nonrelocating individual meant an individual who has, or has filed an action seeking the following:

  1. Custody of the child;
  2. Parenting time with the child; or
  3. Visitation with the child under IC 31-17-5[5].

A major change in the law now requires notice when a paternity affidavit has been properly executed.  A paternity affidavit can be properly executed two (2) ways.  I. C.  16-37-2-2.1(c)(1) If executed through a hospital, the paternity affidavit must be completed not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the child’s birth.

                (2) If executed through a local health department, the paternity affidavit must be completed before the child has reached the age of emancipation.

at the hospital within a

Sec. 84.6, will now read as follows:

            “Nonrelocating individual”, for purposes of IC 31-14-13 and IC 31-17-2.2, means an individual who has, or has filed an action seeking:

  1. Custody of the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2[6];
  2. Parenting time with the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2; or
  3. Visitation with the child under IC 31-17-5.

IC 16-37-2 lays out the requirements for a proper paternity affidavit which may be signed by the mother and father of the child. The paternity affidavit is one of two ways to legally establish paternity. As previously worded Sec. 84.6 would require a “nonrelocating individual” to have a pending action with the court to receive notice. Under IC 16-7-2-2.1(p), an executed paternity affidavit establishes a man as the legal father of the child without any further proceedings by a court.

Sec. 84.7, is amended as follows:

            “Nonrelocating parent”, for purposes of IC 31-14-13 and IC 31-17-2.2, means a parent of a child who has, or is seeking:

  1. Custody of the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2;
  2. Parenting time with the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2; or
  3. Visitation with the child under IC 31-17-5.

And does not intend to move the individual’s principal residence

Sec. 84.7 definition will now apply to matters of custody following the determination of paternity, court order or by paternity affidavit.

Sec 107.5., is amended as follows:

            “Relocating individual”, for the purposes of IC 31-14-13 and IC 31-17-2.2, means an individual who has, or is seeking:

  1. Custody of the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2; and
  2. Parenting time with the child, whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2.

And intends to move the individual’s principal residence. The term does not include an individual granted visitation rights under IC 31-17-5.

Sec. 107.5 definition will also now apply to matters of custody following the determination of paternity.

Prior definition of Sec. 107.5: The court held in Dillon v. Dillon, 42 N.E. 3d 165, that mother attempted to argue that father failed to comply with IC 31-17-2.2-1(a). The Court of Appeals determined that father did not meet the definition of Sec. 107.5. This was because Father moved before Mother filed for divorce. The Court found that at the time of Father’s move he did not have custody nor could he have been “seeking custody” since he moved prior to the divorce being filed. There was no existing custody order. This issue continues unless they had filed a paternity affidavit which may occur if the child was born before the marriage to the parties. Basically, now if the parties are married and one moves under the statute neither are required to give notice.  As we all know it is not usual for parties to separate for long periods of time without filing divorce, so a married parent is not required to give or receive notice even though parties with a paternity affidavit would.

IC 31-9-2-107.7 is amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 107.7. “Relocation” for the purposes of IC 31-14-13 and IC 31-17-2.2, means a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least sixty (60) days.

Sec. 107.7 definition will also now apply to matters of custody following the determination of paternity.

It is significant to note that IC 31-14-13-10[7], which required an individual who has been awarded custody of or parenting time with a child to file notice of intent to relocate with the clerk of the court and send copy of said notice to each nonrelocating individual in accordance with IC 31-17-2.2, is repealed effective July 1, 2019.

Senate Enrolled Bill 292, adds IC 31-14-13-10.2 which added to Indiana Code as a new section effective July 1, 2019:

            Sec. 10.2, Except as provided in IC 31-17-2.2-4[8], and individual who has or is seeking

  1. Custody of a child;
  2. Parenting time with a child; or
  3. Grandparent’s visitation under IC 31-17-5.

Shall at all times keep all other individuals who have or are seeking rights with the child (as described in subdivisions (1) through (3)) advised of the individual’s home address and all of the individual’s telephone numbers and electronic mail addresses. Information required by this section must be provided in writing, including electronically, to each individual entitled to the information.

This addition means that any individual who currently has or is seeking custody, parenting time, and grandparent’s visitation are required to keep every interested party informed, in writing, of their address, telephone number, and email address in matters of custody following the determination of paternity.

Additionally, Senate Enrolled Bill 292 adds IC 31-14-13-10.5, which is as follow effective July 1, 2019:

            Sec. 10.5. The following must comply with IC 31-17-2.2:

           

(1)   A nonrelocating individual.

(2)   A relocating individual.

A nonrelocating individual and relocating individual as defined by IC 31-9-2-84.6 and IC 31-9-2-107.7 are required to comply with the notice of relocation statute.

IC 31-15-2[9] governs actions for dissolution of marriages. The bill amends IC 31-15-2-17 to read as follows:

            Sec. 17. (a) To promote the amicable settlements of disputes that have arisen or may arise between the parties to a marriage attendant upon the dissolution of their marriage, the parties may agree in writing to provisions for:

(1) the maintenance of either of the parties;

(2) the disposition of any property owned by either or both of the parties; and

(3) the custody and support of the children of the parties; and

(4) the relocation of the children of the parties.

     (b) In an action for dissolution of marriage:

(1) the terms of the agreement, if approved by the court, shall be incorporated and merged into the decree and the parties shall be ordered to perform the terms; or

(2) the court may make provisions for:

(A) the disposition of property;

(B) child support;

(C) maintenance; and

(D) custody;

as provided in this title.

     (c) The disposition of property settled by an agreement described in subsection (a) and incorporated and merged into the decree is not subject to subsequent modification by the court, except as the agreement prescribes, or the parties subsequently consent.

IC 31-17-2.2 specifically deals with relocation and the requirements for the “relocating individual” and “nonrelocating individual”.

The following is added to the Indiana Code as new section:

IC 31-17-2.2-.05

            Sec. 0.5. Except as provided in Section 4 of Chapter 2.2, and individual who has or is seeking:

  1. Custody of a child;
  2. Parenting time with a child; or
  3. Grandparent’s visitation under IC 31-17-5;

Shall at all times keep all other individuals who have or are seeking rights with the child (as described in subdivisions (1) through (3)) advised of the individual’s home address and all of the individual’s telephone numbers and electronic mail addresses. Information required by this section must be provided in writing, including electronically, to each individual entitled to the information.

This means that anyone seeking rights needs to keep all parties informed, in writing, of their home address, all telephone numbers and all email addresses. Based up[on the language of the new requirement this would also include work telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.  The notice has to be in writing.  While not clear, I can tell you the terms “…including electronically,…) was meant to mean an electronic notice can suffice as a writing i.e. Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, etc.

A significant amendment comes to IC 31-17-2.2-1. Whereas IC 31-17-2.2-1 previously provided that a relocation individual must file a notice of intent to move with the court regardless of distance. The amendment now reads as follows:

            Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a relocating individual must file a notice of the intent to move with the clerk of the court that:

(1) issued the custody order or parenting time order; or

(2) if subdivision (1) does not apply, has jurisdiction over the legal proceedings concerning the custody of or parenting time with a child;

and send a copy of the notice to any nonrelocating individual.

 (b) A relocating individual is not required to file a notice of intent to move with the clerk of the court if:

(1)   The relocation has been addressed by a prior court order, including a court order relieving the relocating individual of the requirement to file a notice; and

(2)   The relocation will:

(A)  Result in a decrease in the distance between the relocating individual’s residence; or

(B)  Result in an increase of not more than twenty (20) miles in the distance between the relocating individual’s residence and the nonrelocating individual’s residence;

And allow the child to remain enrolled in the child’s current school.

(b)(c) Upon motion of a party, the court shall set the matter for a hearing to allow or restrain the relocation of a child and to review and modify, if appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order. The court’s authority to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order is not affected by the fact that a relocating individual is exempt from the requirement to file a notice of relocation by subsection (b). The court shall take into account the following in determining whether to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order:

(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.

(6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

       (d) A court may order the relocating individual and the nonrelocating individual to participate in mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process before a hearing under this section:

            (1) on its own motion; or

            (2) upon the motion of any party.

      (e) If a relocation occurs, all existing orders for custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, and child support remain in effect until modified by the court.

     (c) (f)The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees for a motion filed under this section in accordance with IC 31-15-10 and IC 34-52-1-1 (b).

In Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (2008) the Supreme Court of Indiana held that IC 13-17-2.2-1 et seq. that the court may, but is not required to, order a change in custody, upon relocation. The trial court in this matter issued an order denying Mother’s request to relocate; continuing joint legal custody of child; and providing that Father would have physical custody if Mother continued to reside out of state, but if she “returns to Indiana she will the residential custodial parent”. It is important to note that this case was heard shortly before the addition of the new relocation statute in 2006.

IC 31-17-2.2-3Notice; information requirements

     Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, an individual required to file a notice under IC 31-14-13-10 or section 1 of this chapter must:

(1) send the notice to each nonrelocating individual:

(A) by registered or certified mail; and

(B) not later than ninety (90) days before the date that the relocating individual intends to move; and

        (1) file and serve the notice on each nonrelocating individual who is a party to the action in accordance with the Indiana Trial Rule Procedure not later than thirty (30 days) before the date of the intended relocation or not more than fourteen (14) days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner;

        (2) send notice to any nonrelocating individual who is not a party to the action by registered or certified mail not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the intended relocation or not more than fourteen (14) days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner; and

(2) (3) provide the following information in the notice:

(A) The intended new residence, including the:

(i) address; and

(ii) mailing address of the relocating individual, if the mailing address is different than the address under item (i).

(B) The home telephone number of the new residence.

(C) Any other applicable telephone number (B) All telephone numbers for the relocating individual.

(D)(C) The date that the relocating individual intends to move.

(E)(D) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child.

(F) A proposal for a revised schedule of parenting time or grandparent visitation with the child.

(E) A statement that the relocating individual either does or does not believe that a revision of parenting time or grandparent visitation is necessary.

(G) (F) A statement that a nonrelocating parent must file an objection to a response regarding the relocation of the child with the court not later than sixty (60) twenty (20) days after receipt service of the notice.

 

(H) (G) The following statements:

  1.             A statement that a party may file a petition requesting an order to prevent the temporary or permanent relocation of a child.
  2.             A statement that a nonrelocating individual may file a petition to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order.

(H) A Statement that all existing orders for custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, and child support remain in effect until modified by the court.

     (b) Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, if the relocating individual is unable to provide the information required under subsection (a)(2) not later than ninety (90) days before the relocating individual intends to move, the relocating individual shall provide the information in the manner required under subsection (a) not later than ten (10) days after the date that the relocating individual obtains the information required to be provided under subsection (a)(2). However, the relocating individual must provide all the information required under subsection (a)(2) not later than thirty (30) days before the relocating individual intends to move to the new residence.

IC 31-17-2.2-4Risk or harm in disclosing information

     Sec. 4. If a court finds that disclosure of the information required under IC 31-14-13-10.2 or section 0.5 or 3 of this chapter creates a significant risk of substantial harm to the relocating individual required to provide the disclosure or to the child, the court may order:

(1) that the address, the telephone number, or other identifying information of the relocating individual or child not be shared with other individuals or disclosed in the pleadings, other documents filed in the proceeding, or the final order;

(2) that the information required under section 3 of this chapter be maintained by the clerk of the court in a secure location separate from the pending case file;

(3) that the notice requirements under IC 31-14-13-10 or this chapter be waived to the extent necessary to protect the relocating individual or child from significant risk of substantial harm; or

(4) other remedial action that the court considers necessary to facilitate the legitimate needs of the parties and the best interest of the child.

IC 31-17-2.2-5Motion to prevent relocation; burden of proof

     Sec. 5. (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. Except as provided in subsection (b), a nonrelocating parent shall file a response not more than twenty (20) days after the day the nonrelocating parent is served notice from the relocating individual under section 3 of this chapter. The nonrelocating parent’s responses must include one (1) of the following:

(1)   A statement that the nonrelocating parent does not:

(A)  Object to the relocation of the child; and

(B)  Request the modification of any custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, or child support order.

(2)   The following:

(A)  A statement that the nonrelocating parent does not object to the relocation of the child.

(B)  A motion requesting the modification a custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, or child support order as a result of the relocation.

(C)  A request for a hearing on the motion filed under clause (B).

(3)   The following:

(A)  A statement that the nonrelocating parent objects to the relocation of the child.

(B)  A motion requesting:

(i)                 A temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation of the child; and

(ii)              The modification of a custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, or child support order as a result of the relocation.

(C)  A request for hearing on the motion filed under clause (B).

      (b) A nonrelocating parent is not required to file a response under subsection (a) if the parties have executed and filed with the court a written agreement resolving all issues related to custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, and child support resulting from the relocation of the child. The agreement must include a child support worksheet to be signed by the parties and attached to the agreement, if the agreement results in a modification of support.

      (c) A motion filed under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(3) must state whether the relocating individual and the nonrelocating parent have participated in mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process regarding the relocation of the child.

     (b) (d)On the request of either party, the court shall hold a full evidentiary hearing to grant or deny a allow or restrain the relocation motion under subsection (a).of the child and to review and modify, if appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order.

     (c) (e)The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason.

     (d)(f) If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof under subsection (c) (e), the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

     (e)(g) If the nonrelocating parent fails to file a motion response under subsection (a), the relocating individual who has custody of the child may relocate to the new residence.

IC 31-17-2.2-6Temporary order to restrain or permit relocation

     Sec. 6. (a) If a nonrelocating parent files a motion under section 5 section 5(a)(3) of this chapter, the court, after notice and an opportunity to be heard or after compliance with Trial Rule 65(B), may grant a temporary order restraining the relocation of a child or order the child to be returned to the nonrelocating parent if the court finds:

(1) that the notice required under IC 31-14-13-10 or section 3 of this chapter was not served in a timely manner and the parties have not presented an agreement concerning a parenting time scheduleregarding the relocation of the child;

(2) that the child has been relocated without:

(A) the appropriate notice;

(B) an agreement between the parties; or

(C) a court order; or

(3) from an examination of the evidence presented at the temporary hearing, that there is a likelihood that, after a final hearing, the court will not approve the relocation of the child.

     (b) The court may grant a temporary order permitting the relocation of the child pending a final hearing if the court:

(1) determines that the notice required under IC 31-14-13-10 or section 3 of this chapter was provided in a timely manner;

(2) issues an order for a revised schedule order that may be necessary for temporary custody parenting time, support, and grandparent visitation with the child; and

(3) reviews the evidence presented at the temporary hearing and determines that there is a likelihood that, after the final hearing, the court will approve the relocation of the child.

     (c) If the court issues a temporary order authorizing the relocating individual to moverelocation of the child in its final judgment, the court must consider factors:

(1) other than; or

(2) in addition to;

the temporary relocation of the child when issuing a final order.

As a sample but not providing legal advice we have attached to forms which may be used.  Of course, every case is different, and, in such matters, you should consult your attorney to determine your rights and responsibilities.  One form is the Notice of Intent to Relocate and the other is the Response to the Notice.  The law now requires that both forms be filed or served, if filing not required, upon the other party or parties.

Prepared by Richard A. Mann of Mann Law, P.C. Attorneys at Law with the assistance of Meagan Viklund, Certified Paralegal, www.rmannlawoffice.com

Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RAMattorneys?ref=hl

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/RAMattorneys

Follow our blog: http://ramlawoffice.blogspot.com/

Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardmannfamilylawattorney/

[1] Upon motion from a party, the court shall set the matter for a hearing to allow or restrain the relocation of the child and to review and modify, If appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order. The Court’s authority to modify is not affected by the fact the relocating individual is exempt from filing a notice of relocation.

[2] Currently, there are two ways to for non-custodial parent to object after notice of relocation has been received: “By filing a motion to prevent the relocation or by filing a motion to modify custody. Gold v. Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836 (2014) (citing T.L. v. J.L., 950 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011)), reh’g denied. See IC §§ 31-17-2.2-1, 5.

[3] After 7/1/2019 it will be IC 31-17-2.2-1(c)(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.

[4] After 7/1/2019, IC 31-17-2.2(a), will require a party to file a response rather than an objection.

[5] Grandparent’s visitation

[6] IC 16-37-2

[7] IC 31-14-13-10

[8] IC 31-17-2.2-4, the exception is if the court finds that the disclosure of the information creates a significant harm to the relocating individual or the child.

[9] IC 31-15-2