HB 1626 amends Indiana family law and juvenile law to require greater detail in child custody orders. The bill adds new sections to the Indiana Code providing that a “custody order” includes final trial court orders awarding, modifying, or denying modification of custody, as well as appellate decisions affirming or reversing those orders. It expressly excludes preliminary or provisional custody orders from this definition.
Under the bill, trial courts must include findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting a custody order, and appellate decisions must include the facts relied upon by the appellate court in affirming or reversing the order. The measure applies to custody cases under both the chapter governing custody disputes between parents and the chapter governing juvenile law custody matters, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill changes Indiana law by imposing a documentation requirement on final custody rulings in both domestic relations and juvenile proceedings. It does not alter the substantive standards for deciding custody, but it requires courts to create a clearer record explaining the basis for custody decisions and appellate review. This is likely to affect trial courts, appellate courts, and parties in custody disputes by improving transparency and potentially making custody orders easier to review and appeal.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 87-2, the Senate 50-0, and the House concurred with Senate amendments 96-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The lack of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little public dispute over the measure’s purpose or language.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the available record. The only likely area of practical concern is the added drafting burden on trial and appellate courts, since they must now include specific findings and facts in custody orders. However, the overwhelming vote margins suggest that any concerns about administrative workload or procedural changes were minor and did not generate significant opposition.