ILNews

Opinions March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of I.P., T.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1402-JT-81
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Finds the procedure used violated the father T.P.’s due process rights. The magistrate who presided over the termination hearing resigned before reporting recommended findings and conclusions to the judge. Another magistrate, without holding a new evidentiary hearing, reviewed the record and reported recommended findings and conclusions to the judge, who ordered the mother’s parental rights terminated. Holds Trial Rule 63(A) is inapplicable.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.B., Ay.B., A.B. and K.G., K.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1402-JT-77
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Finds the procedure used violated parent K.G.’s due process rights. The magistrate who presided over the termination hearing resigned before reporting recommended findings and conclusions to the judge. Another magistrate, without holding a new evidentiary hearing, reviewed the record and reported recommended findings and conclusions to the judge, who ordered the mother’s parental rights terminated.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adam Bigger v. State of Indiana
02A03-1308-CR-315
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 8-year sentence for Class C felony attempted robbery. Since Bigger did not raise the issue of the defense of abandonment or indicate his intent to rely on the defense at the trial court level, the issue is waived.

Brian Byrd v. State of Indiana
10A01-1309-IF-383
Infraction. Reverses judgment against Byrd for the civil infraction of speeding for driving 54 mph in a 30 mph zone. Finds there was a failure of proof as Byrd produced evidence that contradicted the prima facie speed allegation.

Donovan Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1308-CR-714
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal gang activity and Class A felony attempted murder.

Matthew Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1308-CR-704
Criminal. Affirms revocation of work release placement and probation.

Jonah Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1308-CR-392
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Caleb J. Brubaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1310-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.

Robbie L. Hubbard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1310-CR-512
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

Bradley P. Burcham v. Nichole (Burcham) Fillmore (NFP)
49A04-1307-DR-347
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Burcham’s appeal of the denial of his petition to increase visitation consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT