Sec. 67. "Joint legal custody", for purposes of IC 31-14-13, IC 31-17-2-13, IC 31-17-2-14, and IC 31-17-2-15, means
that the persons awarded joint custody will share authority and
responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child's
upbringing, including the child's education, health care, and religious
training.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-21(f)
part.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.95-2009,
SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Marriage of: Amy Steele-Giri v. Brian K. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67, the parties must share “authority and responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training.”
Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67. “In an initial custody determination there is no presumption favoring either parent.”
Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67. As a parent with joint legal custody, Gary had the power to consent to the recording of his minor daughter's telephone conversation.”
C.B. v. B.W., 985 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67 (“joint legal custody” means that the persons awarded joint custody will share authority and responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training).”
Tigner v. Tigner, 878 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67; see also Tarry v. Mason, 710 N.”
Diehl v. Diehl, 630 S.E.2d 25 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
“means that the persons awarded joint custody will share authority and responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training.”
Patterson v. Taylor, 535 S.E.2d 374 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§ 19-9-6 (1999); Ind. Code § 31-9-2-67 (1997); Mich. Comp.”
Clark v. Clark, 726 N.E.2d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67. A trial court may award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of joint legal custody would be in the best interest of the child.”
Finnerty v. Clutter, 917 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 31-9-2-67 (emphasis added). Because Father and Mother have joint legal custody, Father and Mother share authority *157 and responsibility for decisions regarding the children's religious training.”
Reno v. Haler, 743 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“Wife also claims that the statutory definition of joint custody, to which Wife agreed in the signed notes, and the terms of the unsigned agreement are in conflict with regard to the duty to inform the other parent of a medical emergency.”
Tarry v. Mason, 710 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In a joint legal custody arrangement, “the persons awarded joint custody will share authority and responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training.”
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.