Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Zachary Graykowski; Members Source Credit Union v. Zachary Graykowski
25A-GU-526
Guardianship. Reverses the Lake Circuit Court’s order finding Members Source Creidt Union in contempt for violating a guardianship order. Finds the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Members Source willfully violated the order. Also finds that given the lack of clarity in the guardianship order and the erroneous letters of guardianship, Members Source did not willfully disobey the court’s order and cannot be held in contempt of court. Attorneys for appellant: Kevin Steele ,Bryan Bott. Attorney for appellee: John Hughes.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of P.F., a Child in Need of Services, and K.F. (Mother) and B.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
25A-JC-10
Juvenile CHINS. Reverses the Ripley Circuit Court’s order granting a motion for the Indiana Department of Child Services order that it no longer had to use reasonable efforts to reunify child with parents pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7). Finds there was insufficient evidence to show that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision were proven and the trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required. Remands with instructions to provide parents K.F. and B.B. with reunification services. Additionally, because the change in the child’s permanency plan was partially reliant on the no reasonable efforts finding, remands for further proceedings on the permanency plan consistent with this opinion. Attorneys for appellants: Jennifer Joas, R. Patrick Magrath. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Evan Comer.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Damon L. Taylor
24-1007
Criminal. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Chief Judge Holly Brady. Affirms Damon Taylor’s conviction on two counts of threatening to assault a federal law enforcement officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). Finds the district court provided Taylor a fair trial at which his able counsel provided him with a vigorous defense, and Taylor’s counsel was able to marshal the admitted evidence in support of an argument that he did not subjectively appreciate the threatening nature of his statements, that he did not consciously disregard the possibility that the AUSA would take them as genuine threats to her safety, and that he did not intend to impede, intimidate, or interfere with the AUSA in the performance of her official duties. Attorneys for appellant: Michelle Kraus, Chad Pennington. Attorneys for appellee: David Hollar, Maureen Merin.