ILNews

Father’s appeal dismissed as untimely

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Madison County father challenging the denial of his petition for change of custody did not timely file his appeal, so the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed it.

In D.C., Jr. v. C.A., J.D.A. and B.A., 48A05-1305-JP-265, father D.C. Jr. appealed the order from Madison Circuit Court denying his petition for change of custody of his son, C.C., with whom he shared joint legal custody with C.C.’s maternal grandparents.  

The denial of the petition was signed Jan. 17, 2013. The father was granted an extension – until March 31 – to file his memorandum in support of his motion to correct error, which he timely filed on Feb. 8. The grandparents didn’t respond to father’s motion, and the motion was deemed denied pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 53.3. Father filed his notice of appeal May 30.

Since the trial court did not set the motion for a hearing, it would have been deemed denied 45 days after it was filed, which would have been March 25, so father’s notice would have been due April 24.

“Assuming without deciding that the trial court order granting Father’s Motion for Extension to file the supporting memorandum also extended the deadline by which it must rule on the Motion to Correct Error to the extent permitted under Trial Rule 53.3(D), the new deadline for ruling would have been April 24, 2013. When the trial court failed to rule by such date, Father’s Motion to Correct Error was deemed denied and his Notice of Appeal would have been due May 24, 2013,” Judge James Kirsch wrote.

Since D.C. Jr. did not file his appeal until May 30, it was outside either due date mentioned by the court. Since a timely filing is a prerequisite for jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over his appeal.

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