Ringlespaugh: Custody issues for parents of special-needs children

January 13, 2016
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus
ringlespaugh-cassie-mug Ringlespaugh

Each year, millions of married couples with children file for divorce. While divorce can be trying on everyone involved, there are particular challenges for parents who have children with disabilities. Overall, most researchers have found that parents of children with disabilities are much likelier to divorce. A child with a disability has multiple needs that often require parents to learn about and deal with multiple third-party providers, including but not limited to schools, specialists, doctors and therapists. These parents are often faced with significant expenses that parents of typical children never have to consider. Therefore, when deciding child custody in a situation involving a child with special needs, it is important for the courts, parents and attorneys to consider how these situations differ from families that do not have children with disabilities. 

Child custody issues for parents of special-needs children require careful consideration. Indiana law bestows different legal rights to parents depending on whether they have physical or legal custody of their child.

In Indiana, the parent with legal custody has the authority to make decisions in three main categories: major medical decisions, educational decisions and decisions regarding the child’s religion. Parents can have joint legal custody, or one parent can have sole legal custody. Legal custody becomes even more significant when a child has a disability, as there are a multitude of medical and educational decisions that will need to be made by the child’s legal custodian, sometimes on short notice.

When determining legal custody for a child with special needs, it is important to consider the frequency in the selection of doctors, specialists or evaluators as well as the frequency of required medical care and expenses – and each parent’s availability to facilitate the same. Additional considerations for the legal custodian include the potential placement of the child into specialized programs or the need for special education services in the child’s school.

The legal custodian also has the authority to decide a child’s school district. However, this becomes more complex in cases where parents share legal custody. If the parents live in different school districts, Indiana law allows parents to choose which school district the child will attend by filing an election (see Indiana Code 20-26-11). This is important for parents of children who qualify for special education because a child’s school of legal settlement has certain responsibilities and obligations to a child with special needs under state and federal law. Schools that receive federal funding (all public schools and some charter schools) are required to provide a free and appropriate public education and are responsible for identifying a child who may have special education needs, evaluating that child, and providing research-based accommodations to support the child to succeed academically.

Joint legal custody can pose problems for parents of special-needs children when disputes arise. Courts are often used to settle disputes. However, the number of decisions to be made and the speed of response that is often necessary for children with disabilities can make this remedy ineffective in meeting the best interest of the child. This reinforces the importance of parents, lawyers and judges to consider more than just the typical factors in deciding legal custody of special-needs children.

Physical custody also can pose challenges for parents of children with special needs. When there is a dispute of which parent should have physical custody of a child, Indiana utilizes the “best interest of the child standard” to decide which parent should have primary physical custody. However, these factors tend to be generalized to accommodate the “typical” child. For example, the number of transitions required for an equal parenting time order can pose a large issue for children whose disabilities substantially affect the child’s ability to cope with frequent transition and changes in schedules. These types of plans may be impractical or detrimental for a child with a disability. As a former teacher, I can personally attest to the turmoil that can result when a child with autism is subject to the even the smallest changes in schedule. For children with autism, rigidity and predictability should be favored over equal parenting time and frequent transitions.

There are several other factors that should be considered in deciding physical custody of a child with special needs. While it is impossible to list them all, other factors to consider that may be overlooked are potential issues with transition of specialized equipment for a child with disabilities; transportation factors for the child considering each parent’s availability and work schedule; the parent or caregiver’s training in medical equipment or specialized therapies for the child; the parents’ familiarity with third-party providers; or even the other individuals residing with the parents in their homes. In custody matters, it is important to discuss the unique needs for children with disabilities and ensure each parent is fully equipped to care for that child. Parents and legal representatives need to consider how the child will be affected when determining physical custody, including how that child’s disability may exacerbate different stresses resulting from different parenting time schedules.

Legal and physical custody issues involving special-needs children can best be resolved when the divorcing parties work together. If parents cannot agree and the court needs to make the decision, it’s important for parents and lawyers to work together to educate the court on the child’s unique needs. This may mean the two parties work together on the submission into evidence of Individualized Education Programs or Behavioral Intervention Plans, school records, and progress reports. Regardless of the dispute and the complexities in custody issues of special-needs children, the importance of meeting the best interests of the child is always the priority in family law matters.•

Cassie Ringlespaugh is a family law attorney at Cohen & Malad LLP. She has a special interest in child issues including education law. She can be reached via email at The opinions expressed are those of the author.


  • Disagreement if there is special needs
    As a parent of a special needs child, I have gotten more than my fair share of special needs divorce cases. The two issues that I did not see raised in this article are what to do when one parent agrees the child is special needs and the other does not. This usually comes up in the area of mental/emotional problems and not intellectual. The other is when one parent wants to use conventional approaches and the other wants to use non traditional methods, ranging from pro-biotic diets to homeopathy to faith healing. I would like to see peoples take on these issues.

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.