Introduced Version
HOUSE BILL No. 1025
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 31-9-2-67; IC 31-14-13; IC 31-17-2.
Synopsis: Joint legal custody. Establishes a rebuttable presumption
that an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child.
Requires a court, if a party seeks to rebut the presumption, to consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons who would be
awarded joint legal custody; (2) the ability of the persons who would
be awarded joint legal custody to communicate and cooperate in
advancing the child's welfare; and (3) whether the child has established
a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons who would
be awarded joint legal custody. Repeals certain provisions governing
the award of joint legal custody that are being superseded by this bill.
Effective: July 1, 2013.
Pond, Bacon
January 7, 2013, read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced
First Regular Session 118th General Assembly (2013)
PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana
Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type,
additions will appear in
this style type, and deletions will appear in
this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional
provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in
this style type. Also, the
word
NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds
a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in
this style type or
this style type reconciles conflicts
between statutes enacted by the 2012 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
HOUSE BILL No. 1025
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning
family law and juvenile law.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 31-9-2-67; (13)IN1025.1.1. -->
SECTION 1. IC 31-9-2-67, AS AMENDED BY P.L.95-2009,
SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2013]: 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:
(1) education;
(2) health care; and
(3) religious training.
However, the term does not include an award of physical custody
of the child.
SOURCE: IC 31-14-13-2; (13)IN1025.1.2. -->
SECTION 2. IC 31-14-13-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 2. The court shall
determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.
Except as provided in section 2.2 of this chapter, in determining the
child's best interests, there is not a presumption favoring either parent.
The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parents;
(B) the child's siblings; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's
best interest.
(5) The child's adjustment to home, school, and community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either
parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto
custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall
consider the factors described in section 2.5(b) of this chapter.
SOURCE: IC 31-14-13-2.2; (13)IN1025.1.3. -->
SECTION 3. IC 31-14-13-2.2 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA
CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS
[EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 2.2. There is a rebuttable
presumption that an award of joint legal custody is in the best
interest of the child.
SOURCE: IC 31-14-13-2.3; (13)IN1025.1.4. -->
SECTION 4. IC 31-14-13-2.3 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY
1, 2013].
Sec. 2.3. (a) In a proceeding to which this chapter applies, the
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.
(b) An award of joint legal custody under this section does not
require an equal division of physical custody of the child.
(c) In determining whether an award of joint legal custody under
this section would be in the best interest of the child, the court shall
consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that
the persons awarded joint legal custody have agreed to an award of
joint legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint
legal custody;
(2) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody are willing
and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's
welfare;
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial
relationship with both of the persons awarded joint legal custody;
(5) whether the persons awarded joint legal custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so;
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the
home of each of the persons awarded joint legal custody; and
(7) whether there is a pattern of domestic or family violence.
SOURCE: IC 31-14-13-2.4; (13)IN1025.1.5. -->
SECTION 5. IC 31-14-13-2.4 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA
CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS
[EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 2.4. If a party seeks to rebut the
presumption under section 2.2 of this chapter that an award of
joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child, the court shall
consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons who would
be awarded joint legal custody;
(2) whether the persons who would be awarded joint legal
custody are able to communicate and cooperate in advancing
the child's welfare; and
(3) whether the child has established a close and beneficial
relationship with both of the persons who would be awarded
joint legal custody.
SOURCE: IC 31-17-2-8; (13)IN1025.1.6. -->
SECTION 6. IC 31-17-2-8 IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 8. The court shall
determine custody and enter a custody order in accordance with the
best interests of the child. Except as provided in section 13 of this
chapter, in determining the best interests of the child there is no
presumption favoring either parent. The court shall consider all
relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The age and sex of the child.
(2) The wishes of the child's parent or parents.
(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.
(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:
(A) the child's parent or parents;
(B) the child's sibling; and
(C) any other person who may significantly affect the child's
best interests.
(5) The child's adjustment to the child's:
(A) home;
(B) school; and
(C) community.
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either
parent.
(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto
custodian, and if the evidence is sufficient, the court shall
consider the factors described in section 8.5(b) of this chapter.
SOURCE: IC 31-17-2-13; (13)IN1025.1.7. -->
SECTION 7. IC 31-17-2-13 IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 13. The court may
award legal custody of a child jointly if the court finds that an award of
joint legal custody would be There is a rebuttable presumption that
an award of joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child.
SOURCE: IC 31-17-2-14; (13)IN1025.1.8. -->
SECTION 8. IC 31-17-2-14 IS REPEALED [EFFECTIVE JULY 1,
2013]. Sec. 14. An award of joint legal custody under section 13 of this
chapter does not require an equal division of physical custody of the
child.
SOURCE: IC 31-17-2-15; (13)IN1025.1.9. -->
SECTION 9. IC 31-17-2-15, AS AMENDED BY P.L.3-2008,
SECTION 237, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS
[EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 15. In determining whether an
award of joint legal custody If a party seeks to rebut the
presumption under section 13 of this chapter would be that an award
of joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child, the court shall
consider: it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that
the persons awarded joint custody have agreed to an award of joint
legal custody. The court shall also consider:
(1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons who would
be awarded joint legal custody;
(2) whether the persons who would be awarded joint legal
custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in
advancing the child's welfare; and
(3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(4) (3) whether the child has established a close and beneficial
relationship with both of the persons who would be awarded joint
legal custody.
(5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:
(A) live in close proximity to each other; and
(B) plan to continue to do so; and
(6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the
home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.
SOURCE: IC 31-17-2-17; (13)IN1025.1.10. -->
SECTION 10. IC 31-17-2-17 IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 17. (a) Except:
(1) as otherwise:
(A) agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody
order; or
(B) provided in an order by the court; and
(2) as provided in subsection (b);
the custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including the
child's education, health care, and religious training.
(b) If the court finds after motion by a noncustodial parent that, in
the absence of a specific limitation of the custodian's authority, the
child's:
(1) physical health would be endangered; or
(2) emotional development would be significantly impaired;
the court may specifically limit the custodian's authority.