Under Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a), a "relocating individual" must file a notice of intent to move with the clerk of the court that issued the custody or parenting time order.

The definition at § 31-9-2-107.5 is broader than people assume. It covers an individual who has or is seeking custody or parenting time — "whether by court order or by paternity affidavit under IC 16-37-2." So a parent with alternate weekends and no custody still has to file. A father whose only order came from a paternity affidavit still has to file.

One group is expressly carved out: "The term does not include an individual granted visitation rights under IC 31-17-5." Grandparents with court-ordered visitation do not owe a relocation notice. They do still owe everyone their current address and contact information under § 31-17-2.2-0.5, which applies to anyone with or seeking custody, parenting time, or grandparent visitation.

Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-3(1) sets a dual trigger that almost every website omits. The notice must be filed and served "not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the intended relocation or not more than fourteen (14) days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner."

Read that second half carefully. If your employer tells you on Monday that you transfer in ninety days, the fourteen-day clock is the one that governs — not the thirty-day one. People miss this constantly because they read only the first half.

Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-3(3) lists eight required contents: the intended new address and mailing address if different; all telephone numbers; the intended move date; a brief statement of the specific reasons for the relocation; a statement whether the relocating individual believes parenting time or grandparent visitation needs revising; a statement that a nonrelocating parent must respond within twenty days of service; a statement that a party may petition to prevent the relocation or to modify custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation or support; and a statement that all existing orders remain in effect until modified.

A notice missing required contents is a problem for the person who filed it, which is worth knowing on both sides of this.

This is the cleanest rule in the chapter and the one worth understanding before you argue about anything else.

Under § 31-17-2.2-5(e): "The relocating individual has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason." That is a real but modest bar — a job, family support, a remarriage, lower cost of living.

Then § 31-17-2.2-5(f): "If the relocating individual meets the burden of proof under subsection (e), the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child."

So the fight is usually not about whether the move is legitimate. It is about whether the objecting parent can carry the second burden. That is where the evidence has to be aimed.

Ind. Code § 31-17-2.2-1(c) lists six: the distance involved; the hardship and expense for the nonrelocating individual to exercise parenting time or grandparent visitation; the feasibility of preserving the relationship through suitable arrangements, including the parties' financial circumstances; whether there is an established pattern of conduct by the relocating individual, including actions to either promote or thwart the other's contact with the child; the reasons each side gives; and other factors affecting the child's best interest.

The fourth factor is the one that decides close cases. A parent with a documented history of accommodating the other parent's time is in a very different position from one with a history of obstruction — and that record is built over years, not in the twenty days after a notice lands.