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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT