A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
HB1094 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code to recognize and enforce Canadian domestic violence protection orders in Indiana. The bill defines what qualifies as a Canadian domestic violence protection order, who is a protected individual, and who is a respondent, and it applies to orders issued before, on, or after July 1, 2026. It establishes procedures for law enforcement and courts to treat qualifying Canadian orders similarly to Indiana protection orders for purposes of enforcement.
Under the bill, a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe a valid Canadian protection order exists and has been violated must enforce it as if it were an Indiana order. The bill allows enforcement without requiring a certified copy if a record of the order identifies the protected individual and respondent and appears valid on its face, and it also permits officers to rely on other information if no record is presented. If the respondent has not been notified or served, officers must take steps to inform the respondent when safe to do so and notify the protected individual about local victim services.
The bill also authorizes Indiana courts to issue orders enforcing or refusing to enforce a Canadian domestic violence protection order on application by an eligible petitioner or the respondent. A Canadian order is enforceable only if it identifies the parties, is valid and in effect, was issued by a court with jurisdiction, and was entered with notice and an opportunity to be heard consistent with due process. If the order does not meet those requirements, the court may declare it unenforceable and bar registration under the chapter.
HB1094 further provides that registration in Indiana is not required for enforcement, but if a person wants to register the order, Indiana courts must accommodate the request and use a form developed by the Office of Judicial Administration. The bill also directs courts and law enforcement to use procedures similar to those used for Indiana protective orders, grants immunity for good-faith actions taken under the chapter, and states that other legal or equitable remedies remain available. It amends Indiana civil procedure law and is intended to promote uniformity with other states that adopt the same act.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears supportive and procedural rather than controversial, with the caption and structure indicating a uniform-law measure aimed at improving protection for domestic violence survivors. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied materials. The main points of potential contention are likely to involve cross-border enforcement, due process protections for respondents, and the administrative burden on courts and law enforcement, but those concerns are not reflected in the available discussion record.
HB1094 would add IC 34-26-5.5 to the Indiana Code and create a new framework for recognizing and enforcing Canadian domestic violence protection orders in Indiana. It affects law enforcement officers, courts, clerks, prosecutors, and state and local officials by setting enforcement standards, registration procedures, evidentiary rules, and immunity protections. The bill also interacts with Indiana’s existing protective-order enforcement system and references the Indiana protective order registry and related procedures.
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee transcripts or vote history, the measure appears to be a technical, uniform-law bill with a generally favorable policy posture. Its purpose is to extend protection for domestic violence survivors across borders and align Indiana with other jurisdictions adopting the same act. No recorded debate, amendments, or votes were provided to indicate organized opposition or strong controversy.
The most likely areas of contention are the enforcement of foreign-country orders, the extent to which Indiana officers and courts must rely on Canadian records, and whether the respondent received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The bill addresses these concerns by requiring jurisdiction and due-process compliance before enforcement, allowing affirmative defenses, and limiting enforcement orders to the terms of the Canadian protection order. Administrative concerns may also arise over registration forms, court procedures, and coordination with law enforcement, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.