Relocation cases—when one parent wants to move away with the kids—are some of the most emotionally difficult and legally complex situations in family law. These aren’t just about changing zip codes; they’re about big life changes that can deeply affect everyone involved, especially the children.

When a parent wants to move a significant distance, the court has to look at everything carefully. Is the move truly in the children’s best interests? Will it disrupt their lives too much? And how will it affect the other parent’s ability to stay involved and have meaningful time with their kids?

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently took on these tough questions in the case of Burnett v. Burnett. This case highlights just how complicated and emotional relocation issues can be. The court’s decision helped reaffirm the core principles Indiana uses to navigate these delicate situations—where both children’s well-being and the rights of both parents have to be weighed with care. 

Background of the case

Burnett arose from dissolution proceedings in Bartholomew County. After a decade of marriage, the couple divorced. The parties had two minor children and had established a 50/50 shared custody and equal parenting time arrangement while living in the same neighborhood. 

Five months after the dissolution decree, the mother filed a notice of intent to relocate to another county. This move would significantly increase the distance between the children and their father. She proposed changes to the parenting time schedule that would accommodate the move. The father objected, asserting that the relocation was not in the children’s best interests and that the move would substantially reduce his meaningful parenting time. 

Trial court ruling

At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard testimony about the reasons for the proposed move and the potential impacts on the children’s relationships with both parents. While the court found that the mother’s relocation was made in good faith and for a legitimate reason, her desire to live with her new partner, it concluded that the relocation as proposed was not in the best interests of the children. The judge specifically evaluated the statutory factors for relocation under Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-1(c), which requires the court to consider a range of circumstances, including the reason for the move, the impact on parenting time, and how the move would affect the children. 

Since the court found the relocation would unduly disrupt the father’s established and significant parenting time, it denied the relocation request. The trial court also ordered that if the mother chose to relocate despite the ruling, the father would be granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody, with the mother’s parenting time significantly reduced. 

Talk to a Danville, IN, Child Custody Lawyer Today

Chris Arrington represents the rights of parents during custody hearings. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.