Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2 (2026)

Modification or denial; restriction of parenting time rights

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

     Sec. 2. The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child. However, the court shall not restrict a parent's parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-24(b).]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.68-2005, SEC.46.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013).
Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013). · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2. The derivative of these dual declarations is that, not only does a noncustodial parent have a presumed right of parenting time, but the child has the correlative right to receive parenting time from the noncustodial parent because it is presumed to be…”
In re the Marriage of: Wade R. Meisberger v. Margaret Bishop f/k/a Margaret Meisberger, 15 N.E.3d 653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “He argues that here he had been granted visitation rights pursuant to the Guidelines, was precluded from exercising those rights by incarceration, and the court in ruling on his motion did not consider the relevant factors in Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2, instead “only writing, ‘.”
Myron Jay Rickman v. Sheila Rena Rickman, 993 N.E.2d 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “’s decision as to his desire to have communication with him. To the extent that Rickman suggests that the trial court did not make the requisite finding under Ind.”
Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2. Thus, unlike a modification of physical custody, a modification of parenting time does not require a showing of a substantial change.”
In re the Paternity of C.B. & S.B. Gregory W. Brown v. Kara Davis, 112 N.E.3d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “In his initial brief, Father contends that the issue is controlled by Indiana Code Section 31-17-4-2, which states, The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.”
In Re: The Marriage of: Meleeka Clary-Ghosh v. Michael Ghosh, 26 N.E.3d 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Indiana Code Section 31-17-4-2 provides: *991 The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.”
Hill v. Ramey, 744 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2. Reversed. MATHIAS, J.”
E.W. v. J.W., 20 N.E.3d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “However, the court shall not restrict a parent’s parenting time rights unless the court finds that the parenting time might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development.”
Carmichael v. Siegel, 754 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “We observe in any event that Indiana Code Section 31-17-4-2 states that when modifying existing visitation rights of a noncustodial parent, a "court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless the court finds that the visitation might endanger the child's physical…”
Arms v. Arms, 803 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 31-17-4-2 states that when modifying existing visitation rights of a noncustodial parent, a "court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless the court finds that the visitation might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's…”
Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2. 4 . As noted earlier, this version contained both typewritten and handwritten text.”
Haley v. Haley, 771 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-17-4-2 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
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.