ILNews

Granted transfers include child-support case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers late last week, including one in which the court will re-examine a 2007 decision involving child support and incarcerated parents.

In Todd Allen Clark v. Michelle D. Clark, No. 35A05-0801-CV-26, the Supreme Court will decide whether its decision in Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007), also applies to a request for a modification because of incarceration. The Court of Appeals used the Lambert decision - which held incarceration doesn't relieve a parent of child support obligations but makes calculation of support based on actual income or assets the parent has - to determine whether Todd Clark's verified petition for abatement and/or modification of child support order should be granted.

Court of Appeals Judge Margret Robb dissented, writing that it was up to the Supreme Court to expand the parameters of Lambert to include petitions for abatement or modification.

In Steven McCullough v. State, No. 49A02-0711-CR-931, the Court of Appeals ruled on an issue of first impression: whether the state can file a cross-appeal of a sentence. The appellate court held the state can't cross-appeal a sentence for abuse of discretion or inappropriateness unless the defendant appeals his or her sentence in the appellant's brief.

In Jeffrey A. Graham v. State, No. 03A04-0712-CR-688, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld Graham's convictions of criminal recklessness, resisting law enforcement, and criminal mischief, but reversed the trial court's restitution order because the court didn't inquire into his ability to pay. The state presented no evidence at the sentencing hearing regarding his education, employment, income, or living expense. The matter was remanded with instructions to determine Graham's ability to pay and to fix a manner of payment.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT