Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 (2026)

Termination of child support obligation; exceptions; petition for educational needs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 6. (a) The duty to support a child under this chapter, which does not include support for educational needs, ceases when the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs:

(1) The child is emancipated before becoming 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

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.

(4) The child is a full-time student in a secondary school (as defined in IC 20-18-2-18(a)) and a parent or guardian of the child files notice under subsection (c) advising the court that the child continues or will continue to be enrolled in secondary school. In this case, the child support:

(1) continues until; and

(2) terminates upon;

the child's graduation from secondary school.

(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.

(1) be filed with the court and provided to each party to the child support proceeding:

(A) not earlier than the date on which the child becomes seventeen (17) years of age; and

(B) not later than the date on which the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age; and

(2) include:

(A) proof of the child's enrollment; and

(B) the child's expected graduation date.

(d) If:

(1) a parent or guardian files a notice under subsection (a)(4); and

(2) an objection or request for a hearing is not filed by a party to the child support proceeding not later than thirty (30) days after the party receives the notice;

the court may, without holding a hearing, issue an order continuing child support through the date on which the child is expected to graduate.

(e) If a court has established a duty to support a child in a court order issued before July 1, 2012, the:

(1) parent or guardian of the child; or

(2) child;

may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age.

(f) If a court has established a duty to support a child in a court order issued after June 30, 2012, the:

(1) parent or guardian of the child; or

(2) child;

may file a petition for educational needs until the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age.

(g) If:

(1) an order was issued after June 30, 2012, that denied support for educational needs to a child who was less than twenty-one (21) years of age at the time the petition for educational needs was filed; and

(2) support for educational needs was denied based on the fact that the child was older than eighteen (18) years of age;

notwithstanding any other law, a parent or guardian of the child or the child may file with the court a subsequent petition for educational needs. The court shall consider the petition on the merits in accordance with this section and may not consider the absence of subsection (e) from law at the time of the initial filing.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-12(e), (f).]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.2-2007, SEC.362; P.L.80-2010, SEC.30; P.L.111-2012, SEC.2; P.L.207-2013, SEC.45; P.L.263-2019, SEC.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 87 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 48× “The Court of Appeals in Butrum noted that Title 31 of the Indiana Code did not define “enroll” and thus settled on the following definition: “‘is enrolled’ as used in Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 means more than being involved in the application process; rather, it means that one…”

Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6; see also R.R.F. v. L.”

Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 8× “We reverse the trial court's conclusion that Chad was emancipated pursuant to section 31-16-6-6, hold that Chad waived any issue based on failure to join Hembree in this action as a de facto custodian, and deny Chad's request for appellate attorney's fees.”

Butrum v. Roman, 803 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 13× “Specifically, Father contends that because his daughter was eighteen years old, living with her boyfriend, working full-time, and not yet *1142 enrolled in college, she was emancipated pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6. Because the daughter was still being financially…”

Michael Dwain Neal v. Amanda Lee Austin, 20 N.E.3d 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 26× “See Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6 (2011). Effective July 1, 2012, our legislature amended the statute: that amendment lowered the presumptive age for the termination of child support from twenty-one to *576 nineteen, but the amendment- added that the terminated support obligation “does…”

Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 14× “See Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 (a)(2). The trial court found that one child, Wesley, was emancipated.”

Sexton v. Sexton, 970 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “Ind.CodeAnn. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2008). On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it found that K.”

Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “Specifically, Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6 (1998) provides: (a) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs: (1) The child is emancipated before becoming twenty-one (21) years of…”

David A. Turner v. Debbie L. Turner, 983 N.E.2d 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 22× “Turner (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s post-dissolution order denying his petition — which he filed based upon the legislature’s July 1, 2012 amendment to Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 — to terminate *645 child support for his nineteen-year-old child.”

Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6. Educational support orders can continue past the child's emancipation, however.”

Richard Littke v. Laurie Littke, 992 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 33× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE The post-dissolution proceedings resulting in this appeal arose between the legislature’s 2012 and 2013 amendments to Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6. In response to the 2012 amendment — which changed the presumptive age for termination of child support from…”

Marriage of Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 4× “3 Ind.Code Ann. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2006). Given the robust approach our leg-Mature has taken to ensure that all children are supported adequately by their parents until the age of majority, we cannot imagine that the legislature intended for incarcerated parents to be granted a…”

Show all 87 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(2)(1) — 1 case

Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6. Educational support orders can continue past the child's emancipation, however.”

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(3) — 1 case

Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6; see also R.R.F. v. L.”

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a) — 24 cases

Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998). “See Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 (a)(2). The trial court found that one child, Wesley, was emancipated.”

Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6; see also R.R.F. v. L.”

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Mark A. Del Priore v. Jill E. Del Priore, 65 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Gilbert v. Gilbert, 777 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

In re the Paternity of Makayla Lauren Pickett, Gregg Roberts v. Shonda Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(1) — 7 cases

Brodt v. Lewis, 824 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Butrum v. Roman, 803 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Specifically, Father contends that because his daughter was eighteen years old, living with her boyfriend, working full-time, and not yet *1142 enrolled in college, she was emancipated pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6. Because the daughter was still being financially…”

Hirsch v. Oliver, 944 N.E.2d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Dunson v. Dunson, 744 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(2) — 7 cases

Marriage of Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007). “3 Ind.Code Ann. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2006). Given the robust approach our leg-Mature has taken to ensure that all children are supported adequately by their parents until the age of majority, we cannot imagine that the legislature intended for incarcerated parents to be granted a…”

Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. 2012). “The Court of Appeals in Butrum noted that Title 31 of the Indiana Code did not define “enroll” and thus settled on the following definition: “‘is enrolled’ as used in Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 means more than being involved in the application process; rather, it means that one…”

Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998). “See Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 (a)(2). The trial court found that one child, Wesley, was emancipated.”

Dennison v. Dennison, 696 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

Liddy v. Liddy, 881 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(3) — 8 cases

Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6; see also R.R.F. v. L.”

Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998). “See Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 (a)(2). The trial court found that one child, Wesley, was emancipated.”

Connell v. Welty, 725 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

Tew v. Tew, 924 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(3)(B) — 1 case

Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Specifically, Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6 (1998) provides: (a) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs: (1) The child is emancipated before becoming twenty-one (21) years of…”

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(3)(C) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(8) — 3 cases

Borders v. Noel, 800 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Tew v. Tew, 924 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Gray v. Schachel, 846 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(8)(B) — 2 cases

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(8)(C) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(l) — 4 cases

Cubel v. Cubel, 876 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. 2007).

Connell v. Welty, 725 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

Hirsch v. Oliver, 944 N.E.2d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b) — 7 cases

Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-16-6-6; see also R.R.F. v. L.”

Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2002). “We reverse the trial court's conclusion that Chad was emancipated pursuant to section 31-16-6-6, hold that Chad waived any issue based on failure to join Hembree in this action as a de facto custodian, and deny Chad's request for appellate attorney's fees.”

Sexton v. Sexton, 970 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.CodeAnn. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2008). On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it found that K.”

Robles v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Lawson v. Lawson, 695 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(1) — 1 case

Borders v. Noel, 800 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(3) — 3 cases

Sexton v. Sexton, 970 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.CodeAnn. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2008). On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it found that K.”

Marsha Spurr v. Robert Spurr (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Tricia L. Sexton v. Travis Sexton (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(8) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(8)(A) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(c) — 6 cases

David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen, 54 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2016).

Richard Littke v. Laurie Littke, 992 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “STATEMENT OF THE CASE The post-dissolution proceedings resulting in this appeal arose between the legislature’s 2012 and 2013 amendments to Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6. In response to the 2012 amendment — which changed the presumptive age for termination of child support from…”

Donyel Perry v. Tracy Perry (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

In Re the Marriage of: David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Charles W. Wallen v. Jeanne L. Wallen (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

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.