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 re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.E. (Minor Child) and K.E. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-109
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of K.E.’s parental rights to her minor child, A.E. Finds the Department of Child Services made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and A.E. Therefore, mother has not established that her due process rights were violated. Also finds the Marion Superior Court order terminating mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Angela Hokey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms the Decatur Superior Court’s order that Angela Hokey serve 600 days of her previously suspended sentence. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion, noting it is inaccurate to characterize Hokey’s violations as merely “technical.”
Phillip Grigalanz v. Kristi Grigalanz (mem. dec.)
19A-DR-3054
Domestic relation. Affirms the Porter Superior Court’s order, which returned Phillip Grigalanz’s filings to him without consideration because the cause under which he filed the paperwork was closed. Finds Grigalanz failed to present a record on appeal that would permit the court to address his claims.
In the Matter of Children in Need of Services, M.R. and T.D. (Minor Children) and L.R. (Father) and S.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
19A-JC-2942
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the child in need of services adjudication for S.H.’s children, T.D. and M.R. Finds the Marion Superior Court properly adjudicated the children to be CHINS.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.S. (Child) and R.B. (Father); R.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-491
Juvenile termination. Affirms the involuntary termination of R.B.’s parental rights to his child, J.S. Finds the trial court did not err when it denied father’s motion to dismiss because his motion was not in writing as required by Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6(b). Also finds father has not demonstrated DCS and the Allen Superior Court’s noncompliance with Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6(a)(1) prejudiced him or substantially affected his rights.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.