Opinions April 24, 2020

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.B., D.O., P.F., & K.B. (Minor Children) and L.F. (Mother); et al. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al. (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination. Affirms the involuntary termination of L.F.’s parental rights to her children, J.B., D.O., P.F., and K.B. Finds L.F.’s due process rights were not violated by any alleged deficiency in the services offered to her by the Department of Child Services. Further, finds the evidence supports the Marion Superior Court’s findings. Concludes the findings support its conclusions that the conditions under which children were removed from L.F.’s care would not be remedied, that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and that there existed a suitable plan for the care and treatment of children following the termination of  parental rights.

Nathaniel Baxter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Nathaniel Baxter’s aggregate 28-year sentence for two convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Finds Baxter failed to demonstrate that the trial court relied on the prosecutor’s statements when the Hendricks Superior Court sentenced him. Additionally, Baxter’s poor character allowed for an aggravated sentence and thus his sentence was not inappropriate.

Catherine Adkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Catherine Adkins’ conviction in Wayne Circuit Court of Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death. Finds the evidence is sufficient to support Adkins’s conviction.

Frank Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Post conviction. Affirms the St. Joseph Superior Court’s denial of Frank Jones’ successive petition for post conviction relief. Finds Jones has not demonstrated the court erred by determining his successive petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}