Indiana Relocation Law in 2026

Prior to 2006, Indiana law provided that a relocating parent must only give notice if relocating more than 100 miles within state or out-of-state. The statute did not provide for what type of notice, when notice must be given, or what happens after notice is given. That lack of detail inevitably led to late and inadequate notice, and no pre-emptive way to stop a relocation. In 2006, the Indiana General Assembly adopted a comprehensive statute aimed at alleviating those shortcomings. Indiana Code, Section 31-17-2.2-1 et seq provided for a notice period, required notice content, timeline and procedure to object to the proposed child relocation, and a burden-shifting between relocating parent and non-relocating parent. In 2019, Indiana Code, Section 31-17-2.2-1 et seq was amended to provide refinements to the 2006 version. The current statute includes the following.

• Defining when notice is and is not required, based on distance of the proposed relocation and affect, if any, on a child’s school enrolment.
• Required contents of notice.
• Notice filing requirement at least 30 days in advance of proposed child relocation or not more than 14 days after the relocating parent becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner.
• Non-relocating parent response due not later than 20 days after service of the notice.
• Initial burden of proof on the relocating parent to establish that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason.
• If the initial burden of proof for the relocating parent is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of a child.
• A procedure to enjoin the temporary relocation of a child.
• Reference to the standard for an initial custody determination under Indiana Code, Section 31-17-2-8.

The current version of the Indiana relocation statute has seen a multitude of cases in the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court. As to the initial burden of proof on the relocating parent to establish a good faith legitimate reason for relocation, that burden is relatively easily met if there is a unique employment opportunity in another area, a remarriage to an immobile new spouse who cannot replicate a job in a child’s home jurisdiction, or the need to leave to care for an ill relative. Although relatively easily met, that test has become more stringent since 2020 and COVID as to employment reasons for relocating. Individuals have shown the ability to work from anywhere. When the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show that a relocation is not in a child’s best interests, the focus often on the non-relocating parent’s relationship with a child, ties to extended family, involvement with home, school, and community, and nexus to an area. Indiana courts have become much more skeptical of removing a child from a non-relocating parent, even with technology and the ability to interface virtually. Those interactions do not replicate in-person contact and can be particularly difficult during weekdays and if distance is a factor.

Indiana appellate decisions since 2019 have denied more relocations than affirmed, in some instances even in short, in-state proposed moves. The focus is intensifying on the non-relocating parent’s relationship with a proposed relocating child and the negative impact of a relocation. That trend is replicated in Indiana trial courts, which are becoming far more circumspect about child relocation and far less generous in granting approval to relocate. The best interest test for children appears to equate in many instances to having frequent, meaningful, in-person contact with both parents. That equation results in more denials of child relocation requests. Certainly, quite different from the undefined pre-2006 Indiana relocation statute and even more restrictive than the 2006 statutory enactment, as amended in 2019. Contrary to technology being an aid to those seeking to relocate, Indiana courts are focusing more on the lack of in-person contact and the deficiencies in remote child access. That is consistent with trends throughout the United States and child development literature. Remote contact does not allow for attendance at events, home routines, or incidental contact. While better than nothing, remote contact does not serve as an effective surrogate for a parent being with a child.

Moving forward, the expectation is that Indiana trial courts will give even closer scrutiny to proposed child relocations and be less inclined to grant child relocations if there is an involved non-relocating parent. That expectation matches Indiana trial and appellate court evolution. Additionally, that expectation matches the evolving roles of parents in families. As more two-income families require more sharing of childcare, there is more equivalency of roles between relocating and non-relocating parents. The more the sharing of childcare responsibilities, the harder it is to relocate a child. Even in non-intact families, there is an emphasis on “one family, two homes” for children. That emphasis is far harder to achieve with distance between parents. While close proximity relocations are less problematic, they nevertheless create issues (ie, school choice, weekday evening parenting time, extracurricular activities and events, etc). These issues are inconsistent with two-parent participation and disturb parent–child relationships. This disturbance to that relationship is something that Indiana courts try to avoid. As a result, expect child relocation to become even more difficult in the future. That expected result continues a two-decade trend in Indiana that focuses primarily on children and their continued relationships and regular touchpoints with both parents.