Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5 (2026)
Nonsupport of a dependent child
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally fails to provide support to the person's dependent child commits nonsupport of a child, a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Level 5 felony if the person has a previous conviction under this section.
(b) It is a defense that the child had abandoned the home of the child's family without the consent of the child's parent or on the order of a court, but it is not a defense that the child had abandoned the home of the child's family if the cause of the child's leaving was the fault of the child's parent.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person, in the legitimate practice of the person's religious belief, provided treatment by spiritual means through prayer, in lieu of medical care, to the person's dependent child.
(d) It is a defense that the accused person was unable to provide support.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.88; Acts 1978, P.L.144, SEC.9; P.L.213-1996, SEC.4; P.L.123-2001, SEC.4; P.L.158-2013, SEC.552; P.L.148-2014, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “As indicated previously, Wiggins submitted a pretrial motion to dismiss based upon the contention that a conviction under IC § 35-46-1-5, in his particular case, would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
Sanquenetti v. State, 917 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5. Sanquenetti's conviction for class C felony nonsupport of a dependent is based on nonpayment of child support from April 9, 2004, to August 28, 2007.”
Cooper v. State, 760 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5 (a). This court has previously addressed the vagueness issue with respect to Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5.”
Porter v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5(a). 2 . We held oral argument in the Franklin Circuit Court on September 17, 2010.”
Culbertson v. State, 929 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5. 2 . Victoria received assistance from TANF for approximately thirteen years during the period from 1986 through 2003.”
Gilliam v. State, 901 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “NOTES [1] Indiana Code § 35-46-1-5. [2] The time period covered were from May 1, 1995 through December 19, 1995; December 20, 1995 through June 30, 1996; and July 1, 1996 through November 10, 1996.”
Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “[16] We express no opinion on whether Reed's conduct after Baby Lucky was found constituted Nonsupport of a Dependent Child under Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-1-5 . Support is defined in Ind.”
Marriage of Boone v. Boone, 924 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “See Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5. This criminal statute is based entirely on the common law rule that a parent has a duty to support his child.”
Turner v. State, 870 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Specifically, Turner maintains that because he was sentenced after Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5(a) was amended in 2001 which requires an arrearage of more than $15,000 for a Class C felony, the trial court should have classified his arrearage of $13,296.”
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012). “See Ind Code 35-46-1-5(d) (providing that “[i]t is a defense [to charges of nonsupport of a dependent child] that the accused person was unable to provide support”); Rogers v Commonwealth, 321 SW2d 779, 781 (Ky, 1959) (stating that “[p]hysical disability and financial inability…”
Flickner v. State, 908 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5 (Supp.2002). 2 . We find it difficult to accept Flickner's argument that his criminal history, a conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, should have been considered a mitigating circumstance.”
Snowberger v. State, 938 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “On August 20, 2008, the State charged Snowberger with nonsupport of a dependent child as a class C felony under Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5. 2 On August 19, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, Snow-berger pled guilty to nonsupport of a dependent child as a class D felony, and the trial…”
— Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5(a) — 20 cases
Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “As indicated previously, Wiggins submitted a pretrial motion to dismiss based upon the contention that a conviction under IC § 35-46-1-5, in his particular case, would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
Porter v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5(a). 2 . We held oral argument in the Franklin Circuit Court on September 17, 2010.”
Turner v. State, 870 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Specifically, Turner maintains that because he was sentenced after Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5(a) was amended in 2001 which requires an arrearage of more than $15,000 for a Class C felony, the trial court should have classified his arrearage of $13,296.”
Cooper v. State, 760 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5 (a). This court has previously addressed the vagueness issue with respect to Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5.”
John Doe v. Adam Gray, 75 F.4th 710 (7th Cir. 2023).
— Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5(d) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012). “See Ind Code 35-46-1-5(d) (providing that “[i]t is a defense [to charges of nonsupport of a dependent child] that the accused person was unable to provide support”); Rogers v Commonwealth, 321 SW2d 779, 781 (Ky, 1959) (stating that “[p]hysical disability and financial inability…”
Sanquenetti v. State, 917 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind.Code § 35-46-1-5. Sanquenetti's conviction for class C felony nonsupport of a dependent is based on nonpayment of child support from April 9, 2004, to August 28, 2007.”
Cooper v. State, 760 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5 (a). This court has previously addressed the vagueness issue with respect to Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5.”
Geans v. State, 623 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “As indicated previously, Wiggins submitted a pretrial motion to dismiss based upon the contention that a conviction under IC § 35-46-1-5, in his particular case, would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
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.