ILNews

Justices grant 2 transfers

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week:

One case involves the probation revocation that followed a man's questionable communications with minor children he wasn't supposed to be around. The other involves a question of which "home state" child custody and visitation issues should be heard based on federal and state statutes.

In Theron W. Hunter v. State of Indiana, No. 69A01-0702-CR-061, the court will take up an issue addressed in an unpublished memorandum decision from the Court of Appeals in June. The action stems from Ripley County where Hunter pleaded guilty to child molesting in 2001 and served his time, was released, and put on probation. He bought a trailer on his father's property, living about 25 feet from another trailer where his sister and three children resided. He informed everyone about not being able to be around the kids, and his probation officer told Hunter he'd have to change the arrangement. Hunter said he was around the children at times but left when they came nearby and never actually communicated with them. A probation violation was filed and the trial court determined Hunter had violated his probation. It revoked probation and ordered him to serve the entire four-year suspended sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient evidence to support the probation revocation because Hunter had admitted he came into contact with the minor children multiple times and didn't notify his probation officer within 24 hours. Hunter had argued he didn't have actual communications with them, while the state sought the revocation based on his prohibited contact.

Justices also granted transfer in a marriage case, Anthony N. Stewart v. Signe L. (Stewart) Vulliet, No. 12A02-0610-CV-896. This case from Clinton Superior Court involves child custody and visitation issues being handled by courts in both the states of Washington and Indiana and how the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and Indiana Code 31-17-3 apply.

The mother and father married in August 1992 in Washington and lived there for 11 years before moving to Indiana where Stewart's family resided, though Vulliet's family continued living in Washington. She filed for dissolution in November 2003 in Indiana before moving back to Washington, where the couple's daughter was born in February 2004.

The Clinton Superior judge eventually granted the mother's motion to dismiss custody and visitation issues pursuant to the state and federal statutes, in that Indiana is an inconvenient forum because the child was born in Washington and has always been the home state. However, the court ordered that child support issues would remain in Indiana.

Indiana appellate judges wrote in a May 30 opinion that the mother waived any objection regarding the daughter's home state under the UCCJA because she didn't bring it up initially. But the appeals court also reversed the trial court's granting of her motion to dismiss custody and visitation issues.

"The Washington court clearly gave Mother a more favorable custody arrangement and visitation schedule than the Indiana court had ordered .... The timing and sequence of events in this case give the appearance that Mother was attempting to manipulate the UCCJA to gain a favorable result," the court wrote, citing past appellate caselaw from 1999. "We conclude that ... the trial court erred by granting Mother's motion to dismiss the custody and visitation issues based on inconvenient forum."
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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT