Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-15 (2026)
Joint legal custody; matters considered in making award
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 15. In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under section 13 of this chapter would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so; and
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-21(g).]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.3-2008, SEC.237.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Marriage of Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “fying custody, the change in cireumstances required by Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21 need not be so decisive in nature as to make a change in custody necessary for the welfare of the child and (2) when determining whether to modify joint legal custody, a trial court must…”
Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “However, when considering the appropriateness of joint legal custody, the relevant factors are listed in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-15, not sections 8 or 8.5, which are relevant to physical custody determinations.”
Milcherska v. Hoerstman, 56 N.E.3d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Ind. Code § 31-17-2-15 . [23] Our courts have reiterated that factor (2), whether the parents are willing and able to cooperate in advancing the child’s welfare, is of particular importance in making legal custody determina *642 tions.”
Swadner v. Swadner, 897 N.E.2d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “*974 The award of joint legal custody is governed by Indiana Code section 31-17-2-15, which states: In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under section 13 of this chapter would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter of…”
Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-15 addresses the matters a court must consider in determining whether to award the parties joint legal custody: In determining whether an award of joint legal custody … would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider it a matter…”
Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “As to legal custody, the court stated that it considered the factors set forth in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-15 (titled “Joint legal custody; matters considered in making award”), although it did not make specific findings regarding each factor.”
In re: The Marriage of: Caleb Hazelett v. Hailey Hazelett, 119 N.E.3d 153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 31-17-2-15 . A. Findings of Fact [9] Although not raised by Father, we are nevertheless compelled to "review and comment on the propriety of the trial court's findings.”
In Re the Marriage of: J.W. v. M.W. (mem. dec.), 77 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “When considering a modification from joint legal custody to sole legal custody, we must determine whether there has been a substantial change in one or more of the factors listed in Indiana Code section 31-17-2-15, in addition to considering Court of Appeals of Indiana |…”
Ryan Gold v. Starr Weather, 14 N.E.3d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 31-17-2-15. Furthermore, the trial court’s award is essentially meaningless as Mother is authorized to override any of Father’s opinions regarding medical, educational, and religious decisions if she disagrees.”
In re the Paternity of W.R.H. Casie N. Wheeler v. William Jesse Hinshaw, 120 N.E.3d 1039 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Accordingly, the Milcherska panel stated, "When considering a modification from joint legal custody to sole legal custody, we must determine whether there has been a substantial change in one or more of the factors listed in Indiana Code section 31-17-2-15, in addition to…”
Nunn v. Nunn, 791 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “See I.C. § 31-17-2-15(2) (requiring trial courts to consider whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child’s welfare): see also In re V.”
Arms v. Arms, 803 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “I.C. § 31-17-2-15(2) (West 1998); Carmichael v.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2-15(2) — 7 cases
Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “However, when considering the appropriateness of joint legal custody, the relevant factors are listed in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-15, not sections 8 or 8.5, which are relevant to physical custody determinations.”
Marriage of Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “fying custody, the change in cireumstances required by Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21 need not be so decisive in nature as to make a change in custody necessary for the welfare of the child and (2) when determining whether to modify joint legal custody, a trial court must…”
Nunn v. Nunn, 791 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “See I.C. § 31-17-2-15(2) (requiring trial courts to consider whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child’s welfare): see also In re V.”
Arms v. Arms, 803 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “I.C. § 31-17-2-15(2) (West 1998); Carmichael v.”
Kan Shao v. Yan Li (Ind. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2-15(6) — 1 case
Kan Shao v. Yan Li (Ind. Ct. App. 2026).
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.