## Facts

- Valerie Raich Baxendale and Samuel Raich III divorced in 2000; they shared joint legal custody, and Valerie had physical custody of their two children.
- The older child later became a college student; only the younger child, A.R., was at issue.
- After Valerie’s Chicago-area legal job ended, she accepted legal employment in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
- Valerie filed a statutory notice of intent to relocate with A.R. to Minnesota; Sam filed a petition to modify custody.
- Pending decision, the parents agreed A.R. (age eleven) would remain in Indiana with Sam.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and also conducted an in camera interview of A.R. that was not recorded and occurred without counsel; neither party requested recording or attendance.
- The trial court denied Valerie’s request to relocate A.R., continued joint legal custody, and ordered that Sam would have physical custody if Valerie lived in Minnesota, but Valerie would have physical custody if she returned to Indiana.
- Valerie appealed, challenging the custody modification, exclusion of evidence about Sam’s alleged substance use, and the order’s constitutionality; transfer was granted for review by the state supreme court.

## Issues

1. Under Indiana’s 2006 relocation statute, does a parent’s relocation require a custody change, or does the trial court retain discretion whether to modify custody?
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred or abused its discretion in denying relocation and awarding physical custody to Sam if Valerie remained in Minnesota.
3. Whether the procedures and evidentiary rulings (including the unrecorded in camera interview and exclusion of some evidence) and the resulting order violated constitutional rights, including the right to travel and equal protection.

## Decision

- The court held the 2006 relocation statute permits, but does not require, a change of custody when a parent relocates.
- The court affirmed the denial of relocation and the conditional physical-custody arrangement, concluding the trial court’s weighing of statutory and best-interests considerations was not clearly erroneous.
- The court rejected challenges based on the unrecorded in camera interview because the interview was authorized and neither party requested recording or attendance; on appeal, the interview was presumed to support the judgment.
- The court found no reversible error in excluding evidence of Sam’s alleged substance use because Valerie did not show prejudice or that the excluded material would likely alter the outcome.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges, holding the order did not bar Valerie from moving and reflected a child-focused custody determination rather than an unconstitutional burden or unequal treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana’s relocation statute (Ind. Code ch. 31-17-2.2) does not impose a presumption for or against relocation and does not mandate custody modification upon relocation.
- Burden shifting applies: the relocating parent must show the move is in good faith and for a legitimate reason; if shown, the nonrelocating parent must show the relocation is not in the child’s best interests.
- Custody and relocation decisions are reviewed deferentially; reversal is warranted only for clear error or abuse of discretion.
- A statutorily authorized, unrequested unrecorded in camera child interview may be relied on by the trial court, and an appellate court may presume it supports the judgment.
- A custody order determining the child’s residence as a consequence of a parent’s move generally does not violate the parent’s right to travel or equal protection when the parent remains free to relocate and the decision rests on best-interests considerations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a relocation-related custody order, holding that Indiana’s 2006 relocation statute leaves custody modification to trial-court discretion under a burden-shifting, best-interests framework, and that neither the evidentiary/procedural rulings nor the custody consequences of the parent’s move violated constitutional protections.


Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 2008)