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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT