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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT