ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration
49A04-1209-MI-467
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of the daycare’s motion to dissolve and/or modify the order in the First Amended Agreement Judgment between the daycare and FSSA. The trial court properly determined that Rebirth cannot employ LaSonda Carter pursuant to I.C. 12-17.2-6-14 despite an earlier trial court order restricting access to her criminal record.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.C., Et.C. & El.C.; S.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
29A02-1210-JT-833
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights. DCS presented sufficient evidence that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal were not likely to be remedied, and the findings support the court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interests of the children. There was a suitable plan in place for the care and treatment of the children.

Paul Hassfurther v. State of Indiana
26A01-1208-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hassfurther’s petition for judicial review. The evidence established probable cause that Hassfurther had been driving while intoxicated and that he knowingly refused to take a chemical test for intoxication.

Angela Duckworth v. Christopher R. Duckworth

29A02-1208-DR-669
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying custody and child support in favor of father Christopher Duckworth. Mother did not submit a child support worksheet or other evidence of her income, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined her obligation based on the income the father assigned to her on his child support worksheet.

In Re The Paternity of J.T. and I.T., Minor Children; and In Re The Support of C.R.T., Minor Child; R.A.P., Mother v. C.D.T., Father
46A05-1210-JP-544
Juvenile. Affirms order granting sole legal and physical custody of the children to father. The evidence establishes a substantial change in the interrelationship of the parties, which allows for a modification of custody. Mother routinely denied father parenting time to which he was entitled.

Leo Dent, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1208-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment.

Dennis Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1206-PC-547
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.

K.L.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1211-JV-609
Juvenile. Affirms placement in a youth facility for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

Brant Construction, LLC; and Dune Harbor, LLC v. Circle R. Electric, Inc.; DeBoer Egolf Corp.; Auditor, Porter County, Indiana; First National Bank of Illinois; and Wachovia Financial Srvcs., Inc. (NFP)
64A03-1204-CC-159
Civil collection. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Circle R as against Brant, but affirms in favor of Circle R as against Dune Harbor. Remands for calculation of attorney fees.

Leona Peavler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-1209-CR-775
Criminal. Affirms order Peavler be incarcerated for violating the terms of her home detention by using methamphetamine.  

Henry (Hank) Eilts, Hank's Construction, and The G. Jackie Eilts Credit Shelter Trust v. Jeremy Wayman (NFP)
85A02-1208-PL-627
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling that found Eilts agreed to grant Wayman an easement on a farm as part of a project to fix a drainage issue.

Jeremy Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1211-CR-563
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement.

In Re: The Petition for the Adoption of: R.J. and S.J. (Minor Children), R.J. and L.L. v. A.G. and B.G. (NFP)
02A03-1209-AD-403
Adoption. Affirms order denying mother’s motion to withdraw her consent to the adoption and declaring father’s motion to contest the adoption as untimely and his consent irrevocably implied.

Randall Dorsett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1208-CR-623
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony arson, murder and Class B felony robbery.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: J.N. (Minor Child), and JE.N. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
08A02-1212-JT-1010
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

James M. Durkin, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1207-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony robbery.

Tony Monks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1209-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

A.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-JV-810
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing two acts that would be Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions 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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT