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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT