Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-14-7-2 (2026)
Rebuttable presumption; child's biological father
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) If there is not a presumed biological father under section 1 of this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that a man is the child's biological father if, with the consent of the child's mother, the man:
(1) receives the child into the man's home; and
(2) openly holds the child out as the man's biological child.
(b) The circumstances under this section do not establish the man's paternity. A man's paternity may only be established as described in IC 31-14-2-1.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-6.1-9(b) part.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.138-2001, SEC.7; P.L.1-2009, SEC.156.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2006–2016 · leading case: Benjamin Sheetz v. Ronnie Sheetz, 63 N.E.3d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Benjamin Sheetz v. Ronnie Sheetz, 63 N.E.3d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “See I.C. § 31-14-7-2. The question presented has also been considered and decided by both our supreme court and this court in numerous cases, both under the Dissolution of Marriage Act and under prior law going back at least seven decades.”
In Re the Paternity of N.R.R.L., 846 N.E.2d 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 31-14-7-2(b). Rogge contends that he was a necessary party to Milner's paternity action.”
— Ind. Code § 31-14-7-2(b) — 1 case
In Re the Paternity of N.R.R.L., 846 N.E.2d 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 31-14-7-2(b). Rogge contends that he was a necessary party to Milner's paternity action.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.