Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of J.D., a Child in Need of Services, H.M., Mother and B.D., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
23A-JC-1320
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the Decatur Circuit Court’s order adjudicating J.D. as a child in need of services. Finds the juvenile court’s order was not clearly erroneous.
M.T. v. D.W. (mem. dec.)
23A-AD-1328
Adoption. Reverses the Johnson Superior Court’s judgment denying M.T. grandmother’s petition to adopt. Finds the trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous reading of the Consent Statute. Remands to the trial court with instructions to enter factual findings as to whether grandmother proved by clear and convincing evidence that D.W., the child’s biological father, failed without justifiable cause to communicate with the child when able to do so or knowingly failed to provide for child’s care and support when able to do so.
Frankie Dale Miller Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-1391
Criminal. Affirms the Elkhart Superior Court’s judgment. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that there is sufficient evidence to support Frankie Dale Miller Jr.’s Class misdemeanor conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated while endangering a person. Remands to the trial court with instructions to vacate Miller’s Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a controlled substance conviction.
Radiology Imaging Consultants SC v. Ruby Brown, as independent Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Harvell, Deceased (mem. dec.)
23A-CT-1804
Civil tort. Affirms the denial of Radiology Imaging Consultants SC’s motion for summary judgment. Reverses the denial of the motion to strike and the grant of the Estate of Anthony Harvell’s motion for partial summary judgment. Remands for further proceedings.
M.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
23A-JC-2414
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s dispositional order following the determination that M.T.’s daughter S.F. was a child in need of services. Finds the appellate court cannot say the trial court ordered M.T. to participate in services that were not relevant to S.F.’s removal from his care.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.