Ind. Code » Title 31
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1 (2026)

Notice of intent to move residence; modifying orders; attorney's fees; mediation and alternative dispute resolution; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a relocating individual must file a notice of the intent to move with the clerk of the court that:

(1) issued the custody order or parenting time order; or

(2) if subdivision (1) does not apply, has jurisdiction over the legal proceedings concerning the custody of or parenting time with a child.

     (b) A relocating individual is not required to file a notice of intent to move with the clerk of the court if:

(1) the relocation has been addressed by a prior court order, including a court order relieving the relocating individual of the requirement to file a notice; or

(2) the relocation will:

(A) result in a decrease in the distance between the relocating individual's residence and the nonrelocating individual's residence; or

(B) result in an increase of not more than twenty (20) miles in the distance between the relocating individual's residence and the nonrelocating individual's residence;

and allow the child to remain enrolled in the child's current school.

     (c) Upon motion of a party, the court shall set the matter for a hearing to allow or restrain the relocation of a child and to review and modify, if appropriate, a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order. The court's authority to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order is not affected by the fact that a relocating individual is exempt from the requirement to file a notice of relocation by subsection (b). The court shall take into account the following in determining whether to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order:

(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.

(2) The hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation.

(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable parenting time and grandparent visitation arrangements, including consideration of the financial circumstances of the parties.

(4) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the relocating individual, including actions by the relocating individual to either promote or thwart a nonrelocating individual's contact with the child.

(5) The reasons provided by the:

(A) relocating individual for seeking relocation; and

(B) nonrelocating parent for opposing the relocation of the child.

(6) Other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

     (d) A court may order the relocating individual and the nonrelocating individual to participate in mediation or another alternative dispute resolution process before a hearing under this section:

(1) on its own motion; or

(2) upon the motion of any party.

     (e) If a relocation occurs, all existing orders for custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation, and child support remain in effect until modified by the court.

     (f) The court may award reasonable attorney's fees for a motion filed under this section in accordance with IC 31-15-10 and IC 34-52-1-1(b).

As added by P.L.50-2006, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.186-2019, SEC.11; P.L.162-2020, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Swadner v. Swadner
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Swadner v. Swadner (2008) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 9× “In determining whether to modify a custody order, the court is *976 directed to consider several additional factors that are set out in section 31-17-2.2-1 (b) and are specific to relocation.”
Ryan Gold v. Starr Weather (2014) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 12× “See I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b). 14 I.C. § 31-17-2.”
Rogers v. Rogers (2007) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 8× “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1. The trial court "may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a custody order, parenting time order, grandparent visitation order, or child support order.”
David v. Taylor v. Sheryl Crowder Taylor (2015) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 10× “” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1. Here, again, the first motion to request a modification of child support was filed by Mother on March 6, 2013.”
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 23× “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a custody [or] parenting time order[.”
In Re Paternity of BA. S. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 7× “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a eustody [or] parenting time order[.”
Miller v. Carpenter (2012) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1 (listing factors to consider when modifying custody based on a parent’s relocation).”
H.H. v. A.A. (2014) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 5× “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1. "The 'other factors affecting the best interest of the child' include, by implication, the factors set forth for custody determinations and modifications under Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8.”
Baxendale v. Raich (2008) Ind. · cites it 2× “4 I.C. §§ 31-17-2.2-1 to -6 (West Supp.2007).”
In re the Paternity of W.R.H. Casie N. Wheeler v. William Jesse Hinshaw (2019) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 12× “For these reasons, and because Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1 does not place legal custody at issue any time there is a hearing regarding a proposed relocation, legal custody was not at issue at the hearing, and the trial court erred by ordering the modification.”
D.C. v. J.A.C. (2012) Ind. · cites it 2× “A court must weigh the following factors in considering a proposed relocation, as set forth in Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(b): (1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.”
Wolljung v. Sidell (2008) Ind. Ct. App. · cites it 3× “In relocation cases, there is an interplay between the custodial modification statute, Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21, and the relocation statutes, Indiana Code 31-17-2.2-1 through -6. See Baxendale, 878 N.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a) — 13 cases
Dustin Lee Jarrell v. Billie Jo Jarrell (2014) Ind. Ct. App.
H.H. v. A.A. (2014) Ind. Ct. App. “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1. "The 'other factors affecting the best interest of the child' include, by implication, the factors set forth for custody determinations and modifications under Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8.”
Geoffrey A. Gilbert v. Melinda J. Gilbert (2014) Ind. Ct. App.
Amanda Dillon v. Matthew Dillon (2015) Ind. Ct. App.
In re the Paternity of W.R.H. Casie N. Wheeler v. William Jesse Hinshaw (2019) Ind. Ct. App. “For these reasons, and because Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1 does not place legal custody at issue any time there is a hearing regarding a proposed relocation, legal custody was not at issue at the hearing, and the trial court erred by ordering the modification.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a)(1) — 1 case
Charles Kietzman v. Amanda S. Kietzman (2013) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b) — 54 cases
Ryan Gold v. Starr Weather (2014) Ind. Ct. App. “See I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1(b). 14 I.C. § 31-17-2.”
Swadner v. Swadner (2008) Ind. Ct. App. “In determining whether to modify a custody order, the court is *976 directed to consider several additional factors that are set out in section 31-17-2.2-1 (b) and are specific to relocation.”
In Re Paternity of BA. S. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a eustody [or] parenting time order[.”
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a custody [or] parenting time order[.”
David v. Taylor v. Sheryl Crowder Taylor (2015) Ind. Ct. App. “” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-1. Here, again, the first motion to request a modification of child support was filed by Mother on March 6, 2013.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(1) — 2 cases
S.A.W. v. K.L.W. (mem. dec.) (2019) Ind. Ct. App.
In the Matter of the Paternity of S.G., Woodson Goebel v. Jessica Hardin (mem. dec.) (2015) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(3) — 2 cases
T.L. v. J.L. (2011) Ind. Ct. App.
Tl v. Jl (2011) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(4) — 1 case
S.A.W. v. K.L.W. (mem. dec.) (2019) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(5)(A) — 1 case
S.A.W. v. K.L.W. (mem. dec.) (2019) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(5)(B) — 1 case
S.A.W. v. K.L.W. (mem. dec.) (2019) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(6) — 3 cases
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a custody [or] parenting time order[.”
In Re Paternity of JJ (2009) Ind. Ct. App.
S.A.W. v. K.L.W. (mem. dec.) (2019) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b)(8) — 1 case
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J. (2009) Ind. Ct. App. “Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-1(b). "The court may consider a proposed relocation of a child as a factor in determining whether to modify a custody [or] parenting time order[.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(c) — 8 cases
Paternity: Brittney Kozenko v. Isaac Diaz (2024) Ind. Ct. App.
James Emslander v. Jaclyn Baine (2024) Ind. Ct. App.
Clorissa Williams v. James Williams (2025) Ind. Ct. App.
In Re: the Marriage of S.B. v. J.B. (mem. dec.) (2016) Ind. Ct. App.
Tiffani L. (Freeman) Lynn v. Andrew S. Freeman (2020) Ind. Ct. App.
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(c)(2) — 1 case
Clorissa Williams v. James Williams (2025) Ind. Ct. App.
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.