ILNews

COA affirms remand to prior judge over father’s objection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A special judge appointed in a paternity case ruled correctly that matters in the case remanded by the Court of Appeals should be heard by the prior judge who heard the evidence, the appellate court held in a second appeal on the matter.

In In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y., 39A04-1310-JP-512, father R.A. requested a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B), which was granted. He appealed a prior trial court ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Jefferson Circuit Special Judge James B. Morris took the case after Judge Ted Todd granted father’s change-of-judge motion. When Morris received the matter on remand, he ruled that Trial Rule 63(A) requires a judge who hears evidence to make all rulings relating to that evidence.

“On appeal, Father contends that Trial Rules 76(B) and 63(A) conflict, and his right to a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B) trumps Trial Rule 63(A)’s preference for the judge who heard the evidence,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the panel. “We conclude that the rules do not conflict; rather, they govern different aspects of Father’s case —  Father’s change-of-judge request under Trial Rule 76(B) applies prospectively to his modification petition, and Trial Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard the evidence, Judge Todd. We affirm.”

A separate appellate panel heard another appeal from the same case, affirming Morris’ denial of father’s motion to correct error and an order reinstating his visitation time with a child he had in 2003. He and the child’s mother never married, and their relationship ended in 2011.

In In Re: The Paternity of V.A., a Minor Child, R.A. Father v. B.Y., Mother, 39A01-1307-JP-304, as prior appeals were pending, father filed a motion to modify support and custody the same day that Morris assumed jurisdiction. Morris denied the motion on the basis that he lacked jurisdiction to rule.

“(W)e cannot hold the court abused its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to correct error,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the panel in this appeal. “We accordingly affirm the denial of Father’s Motion to Correct Error regarding the dismissal of his petition to modify custody and support.”
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT