Visitation
COA reverses father's visitation of adopted daughter
February 7, 2011
Jennifer NelsonAlthough one Indiana Court of Appeals judge concurred that a biological father’s petition granting visitation with his
daughter should be reversed, he urged legislators and the Indiana Supreme Court to reconsider the issues raised in this case
to “avoid equally unjust results in future cases.”
MoreJudges uphold denying visitation to ex-partner
December 7, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that lawmakers didn’t intend to allow parents to establish joint custody with
third parties under Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-3 by simply filing a joint petition with a trial court. Doing so would allow
parents and third parties to circumvent the requirements of the Adoption Act.
MoreJustices criticize attorney's decision making on publication
September 1, 2010
Michael HoskinsState statutes about adoption and grandparent visitation may be important for Indiana trial courts when considering custody
issues, but courts have long held that foundational due process rights still apply and can’t be sacrificed.
MoreTrial court erred in terminating parenting time
October 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the termination of a father's parenting time with his teenage daughters, finding
the trial court erred because the decision wasn't supported by the record or statute.
MoreCOA: Only deceased's parent can have visitation
July 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA paternal grandmother whose son was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his child's mother doesn't have standing
to petition for visitation with her grandchild under the Grandparent Visitation Act, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt: grandparent visitation survives adoption
February 19, 2009
Michael HoskinsState statute clearly allows grandparent visitation to survive a child's adoption by another biological grandparent, the
Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!