ILNews

  • Home

COA travels to Lafayette for arguments

IL Staff
April 17, 2009
Keywords
Appeals on Wheels, Central Indiana, Courts, Indiana Court of Appeals, Lafayette, Tippecanoe County
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT