ILNews

Justices take grandparent visitation, divorce cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Cases involving grandparents’ visitation rights and modification of parental custody orders have been added to arguments that will be heard by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Justices unanimously granted transfer to a Madison Superior case, In Re the Guardianship of A.J.A., and L.M.A., J.C. v. J.B. and S.B., 48S02-1305-GU-398. In that case, a grandmother who sought visitation with grandchildren who are under the care of guardians persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse a trial court order vacating visitation rights even though the grandmother lacked standing to pursue the original visitation order.

The court also unanimously granted transfer in Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myers, 71S03-1305-DR-399, a not-for-publication Court of Appeals decision from Shelby Superior Court. An appellate panel in that case affirmed a trial court order modifying primary physical custody because of the lack of formality during various proceedings.   

The court’s transfer list for the week ending May 31 may be viewed here.

The list also includes a Randolph Circuit case the justices decided on Friday, Brian Scott Hartman v. State of Indiana, 68S01-1305-CR-395. The court ruled in Hartman that statements made during interrogation of a criminal defendant who previously requested an attorney were not admissible.

Meanwhile, two cases failed to win transfer by the narrowest of margins.

Justices Steven David and Loretta Rush were in the minority voting to grant transfer in a scope-of-public-records case, Seth Anderson v. Huntington County Board of Commissioners, 35A04-1207-MI-357.  David and Rush also who would have taken the NFP case In Re the Matter of A.R., et al., Alleged Children In Need of Services: T.M. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 52A02-1205-JC-388.

 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT