Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-2 (2026)
Initial custody determination
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) If a party provides notice of relocation at an initial hearing to determine custody, the court may consider the factors set forth in this chapter in the court's initial custody determination.
(b) The 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.
As added by P.L.50-2006, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008).
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008). “the court to consider in making its custody determination, section 31-17-2.2-2(b) seems to authorize a court to entertain a custody modification in the event of a significant proposed relocation without regard to any change in the Section 8 factors.”
Rogers v. Rogers, 876 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “" I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(b). Also, in accordance with Indiana Code section 31-17-2.”
In Re Paternity of BA. S., 911 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “]" Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b). Mother contends that the trial court erred in modifying custody in favor of Father, and in support of that argument, she initially argues that the trial court's reliance on Bazendale is misplaced.”
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J., 911 N.E.2d 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “]" Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b). We note at the outset that, in modifying custody of J.”
Amanda Dillon v. Matthew Dillon, 42 N.E.3d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court “may” also consider factors enumerated in the relocation chapter, which include: the distance involved in the proposed change of residence; the hardship and expense involved for the nonrelocating individual to exercise parenting time; and the reasons provided by…”
Marva Deskins Hamilton v. Michael Hamilton, 103 N.E.3d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “2-2(a) provides that "if a party provides notice of relocation at an initial hearing to determine custody, the court may consider the factors set forth in this chapter in the court's initial custody determination." Those relocation factors are as follows: (1) The distance…”
Baxendale v. Raich, 866 N.E.2d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(b) (emphasis added). In every modification case, the person seeking to modify custody must show that modification is in the child’s best interests and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors that the court may consider under Indiana Code…”
In Re Paternity of JJ, 911 N.E.2d 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “]" Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b). We note at the outset that, in modifying custody of J.”
Elizabeth Marshall v. Sean Marshall II (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “First, the relevant statute, Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-2, does not require that a court consider the relocation factors10 when making an initial custody determination; rather, the statute plainly states that the court may consider such factors.”
In Re: the Marriage of S.B. v. J.B. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(a) (emphasis added). In either case, there is a statutory burden-shifting analysis required when a motion seeking an order to prevent the relocation of a child is filed: (c) The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made…”
Jessica Pilkington v. Caleb Pilkington (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-2(a) provides that when a party gives notice of relocation at an initial hearing to determine custody, “the court may consider the factors set forth in [the relocation] chapter in the court’s initial custody determination.”
Quinisha L. Williams v. Willie Cardona-Feliciano (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DC-750 | August 20, 2024 Page 9 of 24 (b) The 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.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-2(a) — 3 cases
Marva Deskins Hamilton v. Michael Hamilton, 103 N.E.3d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “2-2(a) provides that "if a party provides notice of relocation at an initial hearing to determine custody, the court may consider the factors set forth in this chapter in the court's initial custody determination." Those relocation factors are as follows: (1) The distance…”
In Re: the Marriage of S.B. v. J.B. (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(a) (emphasis added). In either case, there is a statutory burden-shifting analysis required when a motion seeking an order to prevent the relocation of a child is filed: (c) The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made…”
Jessica Pilkington v. Caleb Pilkington (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-2(a) provides that when a party gives notice of relocation at an initial hearing to determine custody, “the court may consider the factors set forth in [the relocation] chapter in the court’s initial custody determination.”
— Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b) — 7 cases
Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008). “the court to consider in making its custody determination, section 31-17-2.2-2(b) seems to authorize a court to entertain a custody modification in the event of a significant proposed relocation without regard to any change in the Section 8 factors.”
Rogers v. Rogers, 876 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “" I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(b). Also, in accordance with Indiana Code section 31-17-2.”
In Re Paternity of BA. S., 911 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “]" Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b). Mother contends that the trial court erred in modifying custody in favor of Father, and in support of that argument, she initially argues that the trial court's reliance on Bazendale is misplaced.”
Paternity of J.J. ex rel. E.S. v. A. J., 911 N.E.2d 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “]" Ind.Code § 31-17-2.2-2(b). We note at the outset that, in modifying custody of J.”
Baxendale v. Raich, 866 N.E.2d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “” I.C. § 31-17-2.2-2(b) (emphasis added). In every modification case, the person seeking to modify custody must show that modification is in the child’s best interests and there is a substantial change in one or more of the factors that the court may consider under Indiana Code…”
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.