Child Support and Emancipation in Indiana - Child Removes Themselves from Parental Control

When does child end in Indiana is still a frequent question. I have left the simple answer here.

A bit more complicated is what happens when a child puts themselves outside of parental control.

First, while many lawyers (and I must include myself here) use the shorthand of "emancipation" to describe what occurs under IC 31-16-6-6(a). The statute indicates something different - termination of support instead of emancipation:

(a) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs:
(1) The child is emancipated before becoming twenty-one (21) years of age. In this case the child support, except for the educational needs outlined in section 2(a)(1) of this chapter, terminates at the time of emancipation, although an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
(2) The child is incapacitated. In this case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court.
(3) The child:

(A) is at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(B) has not attended a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution for the prior four (4) months and is not enrolled in a secondary school or postsecondary educational institution; and
(C) is or is capable of supporting himself or herself through employment.
In this case the child support terminates upon the court's finding that the conditions prescribed in this subdivision exist. However, if the court finds that the conditions set forth in clauses (A) through (C) are met but that the child is only partially supporting or is capable of only partially supporting himself or herself, the court may order that support be modified instead of terminated.

What is meant by this statute is the end of the non-custodial parent's obligation to pay child support. At this point,I suggest reading Carpenter v. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d 587, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (the PDF version from the Indiana Court of Appeals is here and at pages 6 -10)., First, while many lawyers (and I must include myself here) use the shorthand of "emancipation" to describe what occurs under I.C. 31-16-6-6. What is meant is the end of the non-custodial parent's obligation to pay child support.

For emancipation proper look at IC 31-16-6-6(b)(3):

(b) For purposes of determining if a child is emancipated under subsection (a)(1), if the court finds that the child:

(1) has joined the United States armed services;
(2) has married; or
(3) is not under the care or control of:

(A) either parent; or

(B) an individual or agency approved by the court;
the court shall find the child emancipated and terminate the child support.

What if the child removes themselves from the control of either parent? On February 19, 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its opinion in Redd v. Redd (pdf version from the Indiana Court of Appeals) which says in part this about (b)(3):

It is well-settled that “emancipation requires that (1) the child initiate the action putting itself outside the parents‟ control and (2) the child in fact be self-supporting.” Dunson, 769 N.E.2d at 1123-24 (“[S]ubsection (b)(3) requires that the child must in fact be supporting itself to be emancipated. The idea that children must be supporting themselves to be emancipated has been a part of Indiana case law since at least 1952.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, “„[t]o determine whether a child has placed herself beyond the control, custody and care of either parent, we consider whether the child is in fact supporting [himself] without the assistance of her parents.‟” Id. at 1125 (quoting Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 100 (Ind. 1996)). Finally, section 31-16-6-6(a) “does not deal with „emancipation‟ of a child; it merely identifies the circumstances under which our legislature has determined a parent‟s obligation to pay child support should terminate.” Carpenter v. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d 587, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

The Court of Appeals then held that under the following facts, there was no emancipation:

In this case, J.R. has not joined the military and is unmarried; therefore, we consider whether he is “under the care or control of either parent.” J.R. resides with Father and no evidence presented establishes that J.R. is supporting himself. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court‟s finding that J.R. is emancipated is not supported by the evidence.

The Redd case has only these facts about J.R.:

J.R. began to reside with Father at some time prior to September 2006, when he quit high school. After the court issued the dissolution decree in early 2007, J.R. resided with Mother in Virginia for approximately five months, but he refused to enroll in school. He returned to Father‟s residence in Indiana at the end of May 2007. J.R. obtained his GED and graduated from the Indiana National Guard Youth Challenge Program on December 8, 2007, his eighteenth birthday. He then moved back to Lafayette to reside with Father. He also enrolled in Ivy Tech Community College.

Compare this with Carpenter where the child made approximately $21,000.00 and was having trouble paying for such things as a flat screen television.