USA – INDIANA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Andrew Z. Soshnick, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
cations if there is an involved non-relocating parent. That expectation matches Indiana trial and appellate court evolution. Additionally, that expectation match - es the evolving roles of parents in families. As more two-income families require more sharing of childcare, there is more equivalency of roles between relocat - ing and non-relocating parents. The more the sharing of childcare responsibilities, the harder it is to relo - cate a child. Even in non-intact families, there is an emphasis on “one family, two homes” for children. That emphasis is far harder to achieve with distance between parents. While close proximity relocations are less problematic, they nevertheless create issues (ie, school choice, weekday evening parenting time, extracurricular activities and events, etc). These issues are inconsistent with two-parent participation and dis - turb parent–child relationships. This disturbance to that relationship is something that Indiana courts try to avoid. As a result, expect child relocation to become even more difficult in the future. That expected result continues a two-decade trend in Indiana that focuses primarily on children and their continued relationships and regular touchpoints with both parents.
176 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook