HB 1035 amends Indiana family-law, child-welfare, and criminal statutes to clarify when a child’s unsupervised conduct may be treated as neglect or child endangerment. The bill defines “independent activity” to include a child traveling on foot, by bicycle, or by public transportation, playing outdoors, remaining at home, or remaining in a stationary vehicle when not supervised by a parent, guardian, or custodian. It then provides that a child is not a child in need of services solely for engaging in such independent activity unless the caregiver is so reckless that allowing it endangers the child’s health or safety, considering the child’s maturity, condition, and ability.
The bill also adds a parallel definition of “independent activity” for the criminal neglect-of-a-dependent statute and creates a defense to prosecution if the accused reasonably believed the activity was not dangerous. It leaves intact the existing felony framework for neglect, abandonment, cruel confinement, deprivation of support, and related offenses, while making clear that ordinary unsupervised childhood activities are not, by themselves, neglect. The measure also preserves existing exceptions for newborn safety devices, emergency medical services custody, and spiritual treatment in lieu of medical care.
The bill’s impact is to narrow the circumstances under which parents, guardians, or custodians can be investigated or prosecuted based solely on a child being unsupervised in common settings. It affects Indiana’s child in need of services provisions and the criminal code governing neglect of a dependent, potentially limiting state intervention in cases involving free-range parenting, outdoor play, walking or biking alone, staying home alone, or sitting in a vehicle without direct supervision.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial in the legislature, as reflected by unanimous floor votes in both chambers. The bill passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 47-0, suggesting broad agreement that the law should distinguish between ordinary independent childhood activity and actual neglect or endangerment.
The main point of contention addressed by the bill is the risk that normal unsupervised childhood behavior could be misinterpreted as neglect under existing law. Supporters appear to favor clearer protection for parents and caregivers who allow age-appropriate independence, while the bill still preserves intervention where a caregiver acts recklessly or the child is genuinely endangered. No recorded committee testimony is provided, and the unanimous votes indicate little visible opposition.
The bill amends IC 31-34-1-1, IC 35-31.5-2-168.2, IC 35-46-1-1, and IC 35-46-1-4, and adds a new definition in the juvenile code for “independent activity.” It limits when unsupervised conduct can support a child-in-need-of-services finding and adds a related defense in neglect-of-a-dependent prosecutions, while leaving the underlying felony penalties and other neglect provisions in place.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little to no opposition, as shown by unanimous passage in both the House and Senate. The legislative sentiment suggests agreement that Indiana law should more clearly protect ordinary, age-appropriate unsupervised childhood activities from being treated as neglect absent actual recklessness or danger.
The central issue is the boundary between acceptable parental discretion and state intervention in child welfare cases. Critics of broad neglect enforcement would be concerned that activities like walking, biking, playing outside, staying home alone, or sitting in a parked vehicle could trigger child-welfare action; the bill responds by carving those activities out unless the caregiver is reckless. At the same time, the bill preserves the state’s ability to act when a child is truly endangered, so the remaining tension is how recklessness and danger will be judged in practice.