HB1080 would add a new chapter to Indiana law governing “family reunification programs,” defined broadly as camps, workshops, therapeutic vacations, or educational programs intended to reunite a parent and child. The bill directs the Department of Child Services not to recommend, and courts not to order, reunification programs that require certain conditions as part of enrollment or participation. Those prohibited conditions include no-contact orders, overnight or out-of-state or multi-day stays, transfers of legal or physical custody, the use of private youth transporters or transport agents using force or coercion, and any use of physical force, undue coercion, verbal abuse, or isolation from family, community, or other supports.
The bill also requires the Office of Judicial Administration to create a judicial training program for judges and other individuals who preside over family law or juvenile law matters. Beginning January 1, 2027, those judicial officers must attend the training at least once each calendar year. The training must cover domestic violence-related topics including child sexual abuse, emotional abuse, coercive control, bias, trauma, the short- and long-term effects of domestic violence, the impact on children living with a perpetrator, and the fact that domestic violence may exist even without a protective order, substantiated child services finding, or other documented evidence.
In terms of legal impact, the bill would amend Indiana Code provisions in Title 31 and Title 33 by creating new statutory restrictions on reunification program recommendations and court orders, while also imposing a recurring training mandate on the judicial branch. It would affect the Department of Child Services, courts handling family and juvenile matters, and any reunification program providers whose models rely on the prohibited conditions. The bill is effective July 1, 2026, with the judicial attendance requirement beginning in 2027.
The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a child-safety and domestic-violence-informed reform, with a strong emphasis on limiting coercive practices and improving judicial awareness. The likely area of contention is whether the restrictions are too broad or too narrow in regulating reunification programs, and whether the annual training mandate is necessary or burdensome for judges and courts.
HB1080 would create new restrictions in Indiana law on when the Department of Child Services and courts may recommend or order family reunification programs, and it would establish a mandatory annual domestic-violence-focused training program for family and juvenile court decision-makers. It would amend/add provisions in IC 31-10-3 and IC 33-24-6-16, affecting child welfare practice, court orders in family and juvenile cases, and judicial education requirements.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the record supplied. The bill’s stated policy direction suggests a protective, reform-oriented approach centered on child safety, domestic violence awareness, and limits on coercive reunification practices.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s categorical bans on certain reunification program conditions, such as no-contact requirements, multi-day or out-of-state stays, custody transfers, and transport practices involving force or coercion. Supporters would likely view these as necessary safeguards against abusive or unsafe reunification models, while critics may argue they could limit judicial discretion or restrict some reunification options. The annual mandatory training requirement for judges may also draw questions about administrative burden, scope, and whether the curriculum should be prescribed by statute.