Fighting Child Relocation in Indiana: How to Protect Your Custody Rights
When a parent wants to relocate with their child, it can significantly impact custody and parenting time. Indiana law strives to balance the rights of both parents while prioritizing the child’s best interests. Courts evaluate relocation requests carefully, considering the impact on the child’s stability, relationships, and overall well-being under Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-1.
A recent case, Burnett v. Burnett, demonstrates how a parent can successfully challenge a relocation request. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision to deny the relocation and award primary physical custody to the non-relocating parent. This case serves as an essential guide for parents facing similar disputes.
📌 Related: Child Relocation in Indiana Custody Cases: What Parents Need to Know
Burnett v. Burnett: A Custody Dispute Over Relocation
Mother and Father divorced and agreed to a joint custody arrangement, sharing 50/50 parenting time with their two children, K.B. (born 2010) and B.B. (born 2014). Both parents lived in the same neighborhood in Columbus, Indiana, allowing for a stable co-parenting arrangement.
Five months after the divorce, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate to West Lafayette, Indiana, where she planned to live with her new partner. The proposed relocation would have significantly reduced Father's parenting time, as the increased travel distance would disrupt the existing custody schedule.
Father objected to the relocation, arguing that it was not in the children's best interests. The trial court denied the relocation request and ruled that if Mother moved, Father would receive sole legal and primary physical custody. Mother would then have long-distance parenting time under the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.
Mother appealed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that the move would negatively impact the children’s stability, education, and relationship with Father.
Legal Analysis: Why the Court Denied Relocation
Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-5 – Parental Relocation Process
Under Indiana law, the parent seeking to relocate must prove that the move is:
✔ In good faith
✔ For a legitimate reason
Once this is established, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show that relocation is not in the child’s best interests.
📌 Application in Burnett v. Burnett:
The court found that Mother’s move was in good faith because she wanted to live with her new partner.
However, Father proved that relocation would negatively impact the children’s well-being, leading the court to deny the relocation request.
Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-1(c) – Best Interests of the Child Factors
The trial court evaluated several statutory factors before deciding whether relocation would serve the children’s best interests:
(1) Distance of the Move
The proposed relocation was nearly two hours away.
The court found that this distance would significantly disrupt Father’s parenting time.
(2) Hardship & Expense for the Non-Relocating Parent
Father had a stable job in Bartholomew County and could not easily relocate.
The move would increase travel costs and make regular visits challenging.
(3) Preserving the Parent-Child Relationship
The children had a strong bond with Father and were happy in Columbus.
The relocation would limit Father’s ability to maintain frequent, meaningful contact.
(4) Pattern of Conduct by the Relocating Parent
The court examined whether Mother’s move was intended to promote or restrict Father’s contact with the children.
Mother’s new schedule would significantly reduce Father’s parenting time, raising concerns.
(5) Reasons for Relocation vs. Objection
Mother argued that her move was to live with her partner.
The court found that this reason was not strongly tied to improving the children's well-being.
Father demonstrated that the relocation would harm the children’s stability.
(6) Other Factors Affecting the Child’s Best Interests
The children were thriving in Columbus and had strong ties to their school and community.
One of the chidlren was excited about a leadership program in the upcoming school year.
📌 Final Decision:
The court ruled that the relocation would negatively impact the children and denied Mother’s request.
If Mother moved, Father would receive sole custody.
If she stayed, the 50/50 parenting arrangement would remain.
Lessons from Burnett v. Burnett: How to Fight a Relocation Request
If you are a non-relocating parent, here are key strategies to oppose a relocation request successfully:
1. Object as Soon as Possible
✔ File an official objection with the court immediately.
✔ Request a hearing to present your case.
2. Prove That the Move is Not in the Child’s Best Interests
✔ Highlight educational and social disruptions the move would cause.
✔ Show how the child benefits from their current environment.
3. Emphasize the Importance of Maintaining Parenting Time
✔ Present evidence of your strong relationship with the child.
✔ Prove that long-distance parenting time would not be enough.
4. Work with an Experienced Family Law Attorney
✔ A lawyer can file the necessary legal motions and gather evidence for your case.
✔ They can present compelling arguments in court to protect your parental rights.
📞 Need legal help? Call Vining Legal at (317) 759-3225 to schedule a consultation.
Conclusion: Protecting Your Parenting Time in Indiana
Relocation cases are complex and can dramatically impact a child’s future. If you believe the move is not in your child’s best interests, you have the right to object and present evidence to the court.
Key Takeaways from Burnett v. Burnett:
✅ Indiana law balances both parents’ rights in relocation cases.
✅ Courts consider multiple factors before approving a move.
✅ A parent’s desire to relocate must serve the child’s best interests.
✅ If relocation negatively impacts the child, the court may deny it.
✅ Legal representation is essential for successfully opposing relocation.
📞 Are you facing a relocation dispute? Contact Vining Legal at (317) 759-3225 for a free consultation.
