Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-21.1.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.96-1999, SEC.10; P.L.68-2005, SEC.36. Repealed by P.L.50-2006, SEC.9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008).
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008). “Before July 1, 2006, changes in custody upon relocation were governed by section 31-17-2-23, which became effective in 1985 and was the first provision specifically addressing relocation-based modifications.”
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 786 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “We begin by noting that the procedure established by Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 will almost always result in a "prospective" order.”
Bettencourt v. Ford, 822 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 (Supp.2003) provides: ‘ (a) If an individual who has been awarded custody of a child under this chapter intends to move to a residence: (1) other than a residence specified in the custody order; and (2) that is outside Indiana or at least one hundred (100)…”
Piercey v. Piercey, 727 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “This statute also requires that upon request, the trial court shall set this matter for hearing “for the purpose of reviewing and modifying, if appropriate, the custody, visitation, and support orders.”
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 810 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2004). “In a separate issue, the Court of Appeals held that in restricting the wife from relocating outside of Allen County, the trial court imposed a requirement more restrictive than the requirements for notice provided by Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23, 2 and remanded for modification…”
Fields v. Fields, 749 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23 (a). The purpose of this notice requirement is to afford the trial court an opportunity to modify the original custody order, if necessary.”
Browell v. Bagby, 875 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Further, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23 “must be construed in conjunction with the child custody modification statute.”
Wolljung v. Sidell, 891 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “We note that this factor, the hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating parent to exercise visitation, was also required to be considered under the former relocation statute, Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-23 (b)(2) (2005).”
Klotz v. Klotz, 747 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “He also asserts that since the parties had signed a provisional joint legal custody order, Mother's proposed move to Nebraska with the minor children fell under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23 , the relocation statute, thus requiring her to file notice of her relocation with the clerk…”
Ireland v. Ireland, 717 A.2d 676 (Conn. 1998). “Code § 7501 (Deering 1996); Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23 (1997); Kan. Stat.”
Green v. Green, 889 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Further, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23 (2004) “ ‘must be construed in conjunction with the child custody modification statute.”
Marriage of Farag v. DeLawter, 743 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 (1998). 1 The purpose of this notice requirement is to afford the trial court with an opportunity to modify the original custody order, if necessary.”
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23(2004): 1 case
Green v. Green, 889 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Further, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23 (2004) “ ‘must be construed in conjunction with the child custody modification statute.”
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23(a): 2 cases
Bettencourt v. Ford, 822 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 (Supp.2003) provides: ‘ (a) If an individual who has been awarded custody of a child under this chapter intends to move to a residence: (1) other than a residence specified in the custody order; and (2) that is outside Indiana or at least one hundred (100)…”
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 786 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “We begin by noting that the procedure established by Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 will almost always result in a "prospective" order.”
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23(b): 5 cases
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 810 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2004). “In a separate issue, the Court of Appeals held that in restricting the wife from relocating outside of Allen County, the trial court imposed a requirement more restrictive than the requirements for notice provided by Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23, 2 and remanded for modification…”
Fields v. Fields, 749 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23 (a). The purpose of this notice requirement is to afford the trial court an opportunity to modify the original custody order, if necessary.”
Piercey v. Piercey, 727 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “This statute also requires that upon request, the trial court shall set this matter for hearing “for the purpose of reviewing and modifying, if appropriate, the custody, visitation, and support orders.”
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 786 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “We begin by noting that the procedure established by Ind.Code § 31-17-2-23 will almost always result in a "prospective" order.”
Green v. Green, 889 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Further, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23 (2004) “ ‘must be construed in conjunction with the child custody modification statute.”
Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23(c): 2 cases
Piercey v. Piercey, 727 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “This statute also requires that upon request, the trial court shall set this matter for hearing “for the purpose of reviewing and modifying, if appropriate, the custody, visitation, and support orders.”
Green v. Green, 889 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Further, Indiana Code § 31-17-2-23 (2004) “ ‘must be construed in conjunction with the child custody modification statute.”
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.