Indiana Child Custody Agreement
Agreeing does not lower the bar in Indiana, with one narrow exception the statute spells out for joint legal custody.
Find out where you stand in Indiana
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
Indiana's custody agreement statute is unusually quiet about what agreeing achieves. IC 31-15-2-17 lets parents agree in writing to provisions for the custody and support of the children, and since 2019 for the relocation of the children as well, but it gives those terms force in only one way: if approved by the court, they are incorporated and merged into the decree and the parties are ordered to perform them. The statute sets out no standard for granting or refusing that approval, and IC 31-17-2-8 leaves the court's own mandate intact, providing that the court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child and that there is no presumption favoring either parent. There is one place where an Indiana agreement carries express statutory weight, and it is narrow: on joint legal custody, IC 31-17-2-15 directs the court to consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the parents have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. Indiana also has no statutory parenting plan, and Title 31 does not use the term at all. Where Indiana is unusually detailed is relocation, which has a chapter of its own with a duration-based definition, a strict notice deadline, and a burden that shifts between the parents.
Key Things to Know
- 1
In Indiana an agreement is a proposal to the court, not a decision. IC 31-15-2-17(a) lets parents agree in writing to provisions for the custody and support of the children and for the relocation of the children, and IC 31-15-2-17(b) provides that the terms, if approved by the court, are incorporated and merged into the decree and the parties are ordered to perform them. If the court does not approve them, the same subsection lets the court make its own provisions for custody as provided in the title. The statute states no standard for that decision, so the court is applying the ordinary best interests test rather than a special rule for agreed cases.
- 2
The one place agreeing carries express weight is joint legal custody. IC 31-17-2-15 requires that, in determining whether joint legal custody is in the child's best interest, 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 same section adds six further considerations the court weighs. That weighting is real and mandatory, but it is expressly not determinative, it creates no presumption, and by its terms it applies only to joint legal custody, not to physical custody or parenting time.
- 3
Indiana does not presume anything about either parent. IC 31-17-2-8 states that the court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child and that in determining best interests there is no presumption favoring either parent. The section then lists nine factors: the age and sex of the child; the wishes of the parents; the wishes of the child, with more weight from age fourteen; the child's interaction with parents, siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests; the child's adjustment to home, school and community; the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent; evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian; and a designation in a power of attorney. Because the statute says all relevant factors, including the following, the list is a floor rather than a limit.
- 4
Since 2025 the order itself has to carry reasoning. IC 31-17-2-8.2 requires a trial court to include its findings of fact and conclusions of law in a final order awarding custody, modifying custody, or denying a modification, and it does not carve out orders that adopt what the parents agreed. An agreement written so that the court can see how the arrangement fits the statutory factors is easier to work from than a bare schedule.
- 5
A written agreement can also change who decides day to day matters. Under IC 31-17-2-17(a) the custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including education, health care and religious training, except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody order. That is a rare Indiana provision that gives the parents' own writing direct effect. It does not make the rest of the agreement permanent: IC 31-15-2-17(c) shields only property terms from later modification, and custody remains modifiable, with IC 31-17-2-21 sending the court back to the same section 8 factors.
- 6
Indiana has no parenting plan. The phrase does not appear in Indiana Code Title 31, no chapter prescribes what a custody document must contain, and there is no filing deadline for one. Vocabulary is worth getting right all the same: Indiana still says custody, legal custody, physical custody and custodian, but a parent's time with the child has been called parenting time since 2005 under IC 31-9-2-88.5, and visitation now belongs to grandparents under IC 31-17-5. Note also that IC 31-17-2-14 says joint legal custody does not require an equal division of physical custody, so a schedule has to be written out rather than assumed from the custody label.
- 7
Relocation is where Indiana is most specific, and the trigger is time rather than distance. IC 31-9-2-107.7 defines relocation as a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least 60 days, with no mileage element. Notice must be filed and served not later than 30 days before the intended move or not more than 14 days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner. IC 31-17-2.2-1(b) excuses notice where a prior court order has already addressed relocation, or where the move both decreases the distance between the parents' residences or increases it by not more than 20 miles and allows the child to remain in the same school, and both limbs of that second exemption must be met.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in Indiana, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
Indiana Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
Parents may agree in writing to provisions for the custody and support of the children and for the relocation of the children. Subsection (c) shields only property terms from later modification, so the document should not describe the custody terms as permanent or final between the parents.
The terms are incorporated and merged into the decree only if approved by the court, and the parties are then ordered to perform them; if they are not approved, the court may make its own provisions for custody as provided in the title. No standard for approval is stated, so the agreement should be drafted as a request for entry rather than as a settled contract.
A trial court must include its findings of fact and conclusions of law in a final order awarding custody, modifying custody, or denying a modification, and the requirement is not written to exclude agreed orders. Terms that explain how the arrangement fits the statutory factors give the court more to work from.
The court determines custody in accordance with the best interests of the child, and there is no presumption favoring either parent. Nine factors are listed, from the child's age and sex through evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence and care by a de facto custodian, and the preamble makes the list open by requiring consideration of all relevant factors.
In deciding whether joint legal custody is in the child's best interest, the court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint custody have agreed to it, alongside six further considerations. Joint legal custody does not require an equal division of physical custody, so the parenting time schedule must be written out separately.
The custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including education, health care and religious training, except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody order. A different allocation therefore has to be written into the agreement, and it should state that it is made at the time of the custody order.
Relocation means a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least 60 days, with no mileage element in the definition. Notice must be filed and served not later than 30 days before the intended relocation or not more than 14 days after the relocating individual becomes aware of it, whichever is sooner.
No notice is required where a prior order has already addressed relocation, or where the move either decreases the distance between the parents' residences or increases it by not more than 20 miles and allows the child to remain enrolled in the child's current school; both parts of that second exemption must be met. A separate continuing duty requires each person with or seeking custody, parenting time or grandparent visitation to keep the others advised in writing of home address, all telephone numbers and all electronic mail addresses.
The nonrelocating parent has 20 days from service to respond, and if no response is filed the relocating individual may move. A written agreement filed with the court resolving all issues related to custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation and child support excuses the response. If the matter is contested, the relocating individual must prove the move is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason, after which the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show the move is not in the child's best interest.
Where a noncustodial parent has been convicted of a crime involving domestic or family violence that was witnessed or heard by the child, there is a rebuttable presumption that the court shall order supervised parenting time, for at least one and not more than two years following the crime or until the child is emancipated, whichever is first. The court may also require completion of a certified batterer's intervention program as a condition of unsupervised time. This is a presumption about supervision, not a presumption against custody.
Frequently Asked Questions
The agreement goes to the judge, and the judge still decides. IC 31-15-2-17(a) allows parents to agree in writing to provisions for the custody and support of the children, and since 2019 for the relocation of the children, but IC 31-15-2-17(b) gives those terms effect only if approved by the court, in which case they are incorporated and merged into the decree and the parties are ordered to perform them. The statute supplies no standard for approving or refusing, and no unconscionability test or contrary-finding requirement of the kind other states use. The court's own duty is unchanged: under IC 31-17-2-8 it determines custody in accordance with the child's best interests, and there is no presumption favoring either parent.
Yes. Under IC 31-15-2-17(b) the terms are incorporated and merged into the decree if approved by the court, and if they are not approved the court may make its own provisions for custody as provided in the title. Parents cannot contract away the court's authority over a child. Since 2025, IC 31-17-2-8.2 has also required the trial court to include its findings of fact and conclusions of law in a final order awarding custody, modifying custody, or denying a modification, and that requirement is not written to exclude orders that adopt an agreement.
On joint legal custody, yes, in a specific and limited way. IC 31-17-2-15 provides that in determining whether joint legal custody is in the child's best interest, 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, and the section lists six further considerations. That is mandatory weight, not a presumption, and it does not shift any burden. It also reaches joint legal custody only, so it does not attach to an agreement about physical custody or the parenting time schedule, and IC 31-17-2-14 confirms that joint legal custody does not require an equal division of physical custody.
IC 31-17-2-8 directs the court to determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child, states that there is no presumption favoring either parent, and lists nine factors: the child's age and sex; the wishes of the parents; the wishes of the child, with more consideration given if the child is at least fourteen; the child's interaction and interrelationship with parents, siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests; the child's adjustment to home, school and community; the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either parent; evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian; and a designation in a power of attorney. The preamble says all relevant factors, including the following, so the list is open. Where the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a de facto custodian has cared for the child, IC 31-17-2-8.5 adds four more factors.
Indiana Code Title 31 does not use the term parenting plan, and no Indiana statute requires one or prescribes what it must contain. What the statutes describe instead is a written agreement submitted for approval under IC 31-15-2-17 and, once approved, a custody order. That means the content of the document is up to the parents, so it is worth covering the things the statutes actually touch: the allocation of legal custody, who the custodian is, a parenting time schedule detailed enough to enforce, authority over upbringing under IC 31-17-2-17(a), and relocation notice. Local courts can have their own filing requirements, so check what your court asks for.
Not for parents. Indiana kept the word custody, and Title 31 still speaks of legal custody, physical custody, the custodian, and the noncustodial parent. What changed in 2005 is that a parent's time with the child became parenting time, defined at IC 31-9-2-88.5 as the time set aside by a court order for a parent and child to spend together, and IC 31-17-4 is now the chapter on parenting time rights of the noncustodial parent. Visitation survives in Title 31 but is reserved for grandparents under IC 31-17-5. Indiana also recognises a de facto custodian, defined at IC 31-9-2-35.5, which is a role a national form will not have.
Through the order rather than the agreement, which is why approval matters. Once the terms are merged into the decree, IC 31-17-4-8 applies: where a court finds that the custodial parent has intentionally violated a parenting time order without justifiable cause, the court shall find the custodial parent in contempt and shall order make-up parenting time, and it may award attorney's fees and order community restitution or service. IC 31-17-4-9 preserves other civil and criminal remedies. Indiana also has a mediation chapter, IC 31-17-2.4, but referral is the court's decision and a mediated agreement is not made binding by it.
Indiana measures relocation by duration, not distance. IC 31-9-2-107.7 defines relocation as a change in the primary residence of an individual for a period of at least 60 days, and the definition contains no mileage element. Distance appears only as an exemption from the notice duty: IC 31-17-2.2-1(b) excuses notice where relocation has already been addressed by a prior court order, or where the move both decreases the distance between the parents' residences or increases it by not more than 20 miles and allows the child to remain enrolled in the child's current school. Both parts of that second exemption must be satisfied, so a short move that changes the child's school still requires notice. Separately, IC 31-17-2.2-0.5 imposes a continuing duty on anyone with or seeking custody, parenting time or grandparent visitation to keep the others advised in writing of home address, all telephone numbers and all electronic mail addresses.
IC 31-17-2.2-3 requires the notice to be filed and served not later than 30 days before the date of the intended relocation, or not more than 14 days after the relocating individual becomes aware of the relocation, whichever is sooner, so the 30 day figure alone is not the whole rule. The nonrelocating parent then has 20 days from service to file a response under IC 31-17-2.2-5, choosing between no objection, no objection with a request to modify, or an objection with a motion to prevent the relocation. If no response is filed, subsection (g) allows the relocating individual to move. If the parents instead execute and file a written agreement resolving all issues related to custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation and child support arising from the relocation, subsection (b) excuses the response, with a signed child support worksheet attached where support changes.
Indiana puts the two steps in the statute. Under IC 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. If that burden is met, subsection (f) shifts the burden to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. The court weighs the six factors at IC 31-17-2.2-1(c), and IC 31-17-2.2-1(e) provides that existing orders for custody, parenting time, grandparent visitation and child support remain in effect until the court modifies them, so a move does not change an order by itself. IC 31-17-2.2-4 lets the court waive or seal the disclosure requirements where disclosure would create a significant risk of substantial harm.