Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Paternity of A.B., N.W., and B.W. (Minor Children); Johnathan Brown (Father) v. Amy Warren (Mother)
24A-JP-1833
Juvenile paternity. Reverses the Hamilton Superior Court order denying Johnathan Brown’s  motion to modify child support and finding him to be in contempt for failing to pay Amy Warren for their children’s past extracurricular activities. Finds the trial court clearly erred when it denied the father’s motion to modify child support and abused its discretion when it found the father to be in contempt. Remands with instructions for the trial court to: (1) hold a hearing for additional evidence to be presented on the relevant factors that the trial court should consider when determining the father’s potential income and to adjust its order as necessary to impute an appropriate level of potential income to the father based on that evidence; and (2) vacate that portion of its order that found the father in contempt for failing to pay the mother $3,647.75 for the past extracurricular activities and ordered the father to reimburse the mother $1,000 for the attorney fees that she incurred in bringing her contempt petition. Attorney for appellant: Brian DeHem. No attorney listed for appellee.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, et al. v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al.
24-2633, 24-2741, & 24-2770
Civil. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Affirms the district court’s injunction requiring the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to pay the plaintiffs E.R. and G.S.’ mothers for providing attendant care services until in-home nurses are procured for each child. Finds the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their Americans with Disabilities Act claims. Also finds no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing of the equities or its assessment that the public interest is best served by preserving plaintiffs’ access to medically necessary care and enforcing federal antidiscrimination law. Remands for further proceedings. Attorneys for appellants: Gavin Rose, Thomas Crishon, Samuel Adams, Stevie Pactor. Attorneys for appellees: Ryan Hurley, Harmony Mappes, Matthew Elliott, Melinda Hudson.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lauren Cupp v. State of Indiana
24A-CR-2333
Criminal. Affirms Lauren Cupp’s convictions in Boone Circuit Court of of two counts of resisting law enforcement—one count for each officer she resisted—and two counts of felony neglect of a dependent. Also affirms the trial court’s imposition of a sentence enhancement based on Cupp’s use of a firearm during her resistance of the second officer. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support Cupp’s conviction for resisting Officer Thomas because a reasonable jury could conclude that he visibly identified himself as police, that Cupp understood she was ordered to stop, and that she fled anyways. Also finds Cupp’s double jeopardy claim fails because she committed two distinct acts of resistance. Finally, finds Officer Thomas qualifies as a “police officer” under the Enhancement Statute despite being employed by a town rather than a city. Judge Melissa May dissents in part, concurs in result in part, and concurs in full in part with a separate opinion. Attorney for appellant: Riley Parr. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Daylon Welliver.