ILNews

Opinions Oct. 10, 2013

October 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.T., D.T., L.T., and Y.T., Minor Children: M.T., v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate
45A03-1302-JT-49
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. The mother has not demonstrated that the trial court clearly erred when it determined that continuation of the parent-child relationship with the children poses a threat to their well-being. Nor has she shown that termination is not in the best interest of the children or that the court erred when it determined that adoption is a satisfactory plan following the terminations.

Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone
49A02-1210-DR-820
Domestic relation. Grants rehearing to acknowledge that father did file a reply brief in the case, but affirms original opinion in all respects, including that his supervised visitation argument is moot.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.W. (Minor Child), and J.W. (Mother), v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
26A01-1303-JT-113
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. The mother has not shown that she was denied due process in the CHINS proceedings or termination proceedings. The DCS established by clear and convincing evidence the requisite elements to support the termination of parental rights.

Nathan and Deanna Ferguson v. Shiel Sexton Company, Inc., WR Dunkin & Son, Inc., Lynch, Harrison & Brumleve, Inc., et al.
29A05-1301-CT-8
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Poynter Sheet Metal Inc. on the issue of duty in the Fergusons’ negligence action. They sought damages for injuries Nathan Ferguson sustained in a construction accident. The Fergusons failed to establish the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Dustin Jack Gifford v. State of Indiana
40A05-1304-CR-197
Criminal. Reverses Class D felony conviction of possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. The state presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

John Einhorn and Roxanne Einhorn v. Scott Johnson, Gretchen Johnson, Purdue University Board of Trustees, et al.
50A03-1303-CT-93
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the Einhorns’ complaint for damages alleging negligence. Because John Einhorn was not Purdue’s employee at the time of the accident, his negligence claim against Purdue is not barred by the exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. Purdue and 4-H Fair Association are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under the Equine Activity Statute. The Johnsons are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because they did not know or have reason to know that the horse Clu had any dangerous propensities prior to the accident.

Coady Coyote Craddick v. Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)

52A02-1211-MI-942
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of complaint against the DOC alleging it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution by classifying Craddick as a sex offender.

Fredrick D. McClure v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1302-CR-196
Criminal. Affirms trial court determination that McClure’s previously stayed sentence was eight years rather than four years.

Jason Hays v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1303-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in blood causing death.

Joseph A. Kast v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1301-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for murder conviction.

Tabatha Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1302-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon, Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Ryan Thomas Johnston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1212-CR-1014
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Roy Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1302-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor conversion.

In Re The Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.C. and M.C.: Ro.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1303-JT-194
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT