Kohlhaas: Notable changes to Indiana’s Parenting Time Guidelines

July 17, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


kohlhaas-michael-mug.jpg Kohlhaas

By Michael Kohlhaas

Earlier this year, the Indiana Supreme Court amended the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The IPTG amendments became effective on March 1. A complete copy of the amended rules, with redlining showing the revisions, can be found at

The notable changes include:

1. Applicability. First, the revised IPTG apply only to parenting time orders issued AFTER the March 1, 2013, effective date. The revised IPTG will not apply retroactively to old parenting time orders automatically.

2. Annual schedule. To facilitate planning, parents are now encouraged to develop year-long calendars that determine in advance who will have parenting time, and when, for the entire year. See Preamble B at Commentary 3.

3. Findings. A trial court’s decision to give a parent more than IPTG time does not require written findings, but giving a parent less than IPTG time does require written findings. See Preamble C(3).

4. Email. Email addresses have been added to the list of contact information that parents should keep current and exchange with each other. See Section I(A)(1).

5. Communication with the child. Facilitating communication between the child and the parent not exercising parenting time is underscored as an important expectation of the parent who is then exercising parenting time. See Section I(A)(7).

6. Punctual exchanges. Added importance is placed upon punctual parenting time exchanges; delays trigger make-up time to occur at the convenience of the parent not responsible for the delay. See Section I(B)(2).

7. Opportunities for additional parenting time. The so-called “right of first refusal” language now essentially codifies the Shelton case (Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006)). Specifically, the opportunity for additional parenting time is not triggered when a “responsible household family member” is available to care for the child and, further, this term is defined as “an adult person residing in the household, who is related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption.” See Section I(C)(3). Note also that new language in the commentary discourages use of the term “right of first refusal” in favor of “opportunity to exercise additional parenting time.”

8. Medical instructions. Medical instructions related to a child must be followed by the non-custodial parent. See Section I(D)(4).

9. Young children. For very young children, there is new language recommending overnights only when the non-custodial parent has previously exercised regular care responsibilities. See Section II(B).

10. Summer parenting time. Summer parenting time selection notice (still by April 1) should be given “in writing and verbally.” And, employer-imposed restrictions on either parent’s schedule should be considered by both parents in fashioning the summer schedule. See Section II(D)(3). Also, there is new language for children who have year-round or “balanced calendars” whereby the parents shall equally divide the child’s fall and spring school breaks.

11. Regular schedule versus holidays. The interplay between the alternating weekend schedule and the holiday schedule has been clarified: the tempo of the alternating weekends is not affected by a holiday. See Section II(F)(1). Thus, either parent could conceivably have three consecutive weekends of parenting time when a holiday weekend falls in between two regular weekends. The benefit of this clarification is that a parent who knows the first regular weekend in January can easily determine the regular alternating weekends for the entire calendar year.

12. New Year’s Eve/Day deleted. New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day are no longer holidays. See Section II(F)(2)(B). They will now fall as part of the regular Christmas break allocation.

13. Birthdays trumped by holidays. Children’s birthdays and a parent’s birthday continue to be a “special day.” However, in the event of a conflict with another special day, holiday or Christmas vacation, the birthday will not take precedence over the other special day, holiday or Christmas vacation. See Section II(F)(2)(A)(5).

14. Christmas break. The particular start and end times of Christmas break are revised slightly, but the same concept of alternating the first half and second half of the break (with the parent not having Christmas Day to have the child from noon to 9 p.m. on Dec. 25) remains the same. See Section II(F)(2)(B).

15. MLK and Presidents Day weekends added. Martin Luther King Jr. weekend and Presidents Day weekend are added as holidays, from Friday at 6 p.m. to Monday at 7 p.m., if observed by the child’s school. See Section II(F)(2)(C).

16. Fall break added. Fall break is also added as a new alternating holiday weekend, from two hours after the child finishes school until 7 p.m. the evening before school resumes. See Section II(F)(2)(C).

17. Holiday schedule expressly alternates. The holiday schedule is clarified that it is alternated in years between the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent. See Section II(F)(2)(C). (The prior version of the IPTG allocated holidays only to the non-custodial parent, leaving a potential ambiguity about whether the custodial parent was awarded those same holiday periods in the alternating years.)

18. “Parallel parenting schedule.” The revised IPTG adds an entirely new section on “parallel parenting,” including a model parallel parenting order in the IPTG appendix. See Section IV. These orders are appropriate only in “high conflict” situations. There are numerous miscellaneous provisions designed to limit the need for communication between the parents. Mid-week parenting time and make-up time are generally omitted due to the higher level of communication required to schedule these. These orders are to be handled with a 180-day periodic review by the court to determine if the parallel parenting order would benefit from modification, including to the regular IPTG schedule.•


Michael Kohlhaas is a partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. He concentrates his practice in a variety of personal representations, including the areas of matrimonial law and wealth transfer planning. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.