ILNews

COA travels to Lafayette for arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals travels to Lafayette April 20 to hear a case regarding the delayed return of children to their mother following the death of a sibling.

Judges Cale Bradford, Patricia Riley, and Margret Robb will hear In re T.A. and K.S.; L.F. v. Department of Child Services, No. 66A04-0807-JV-435, in which T.A. and K.S. were removed from their home by the Pulaski County Department of Child Services following the sudden death of their 14-year-old sibling. After an autopsy showed the teen's death was accidental and caused by a prescription drug error, the mother, L.F., and DCS agreed to a timeline to return T.A. and K.S. DCS didn't return the children by the agreed upon date of Aug. 3, 2007, so L.F. filed a motion to hold DCS in contempt. The trial court ordered the children returned on Aug. 9. DCS later filed a motion to dismiss the contempt motion, which the trial court granted.

L.F. filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied, leading to her appeal.

Arguments begin at 10 a.m. in Ivy Tech Hall on the campus of Ivy Tech, Lafayette.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT