ILNews

1st pro bono appeals program case gets transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted has granted transfer to two cases, including the first case from the Indiana State Bar Association's pro bono appellate program.

The case In the Matter of the Adoption of the Unborn Child of B.W., Wilfrido Garcia v. David Heine Bos and Janae Herbst Bos, No. 03A04-0802-CV-107, is the first case from the state bar's pro bono appellate program, which began in January 2007, to reach the Indiana Supreme Court, said Bose McKinney & Evans attorney Bryan Babb, who is representing Wilfrido Garcia in the appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decree of adoption of Garcia's child, T.B. The appellate court found Garcia failed to follow the statutory requirements to contest the child's adoption, so his consent to the adoption is irrevocably implied.

Garcia argued Indiana Code Sections 31-19-4-5 and -9-12 are in conflict because -9-12 requires the putative father to file a motion to contest the adoption or to initiate a paternity action within 30 days of being served with the petition for adoption and notice of named father. The Court of Appeals ruled the statutes can be "harmonized and rationalized to give effect to both statutes, given the recognition of the named father's obligation" to consult Indiana's adoption statutes as is stated in the notice of pending adoption proceedings.

The high court also granted transfer to Byron Breaston v. State of Indiana, No. 20A04-0802-PC-113, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court's ruling to vacate Breaston's habitual offender enhancement and reinstated the enhancement because the state showed he had another felony conviction that could support the habitual offender enhancement. The appellate court affirmed the post-conviction court's rulings on all other grounds, including that the state didn't waive all arguments because it failed to respond to his petition for post-conviction relief, the denial of Breaston's motion to consolidate his post-conviction case with a civil suit against several public defenders, and his conviction of escape stands because he wasn't on probation at the time he was arrested for failing to return to detention while on work release.

The cases were granted transfer Oct. 15 but details weren't released until late afternoon Oct. 16.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  2. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT