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
Shawn Lacey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-1689
Criminal. Affirms Shawn Lacey’s conviction of Level 5 felony battery. Finds the evidence is sufficient.
Kelly Jo Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-2314
Criminal. Affirms Kelly Jo Marshall’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident with serious bodily injury as a Level 6 felony. Finds the evidence is sufficient.
In the Matter of Z.B., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, J.E. (Father), C.S. (Stepmother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JC-61
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the determination that Z.B. is a child in need of services. Finds the Department of Child Services proved coercive intervention of the court was needed.
D.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-JV-2085
Juvenile. Affirms D.J.’s placement in a residential treatment facility after he was adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent. Finds the juvenile court’s conclusion is supported by the record.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.H. and E.M. (Minor Children); J.M. (Father) and K.L. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-2267
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother K.L. and father J.M.’s parental rights over their minor children. Finds J.M. has not shown that the Department of Child Services violated his substantive right to due process. Also finds the parents have not shown that DCS presented insufficient evidence to support the termination of their parental rights.
In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Hai. H., Hu. H., and Hay. H., (minor children) and T.H. (mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-93
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother T.H.’s parental rights to her three children. Finds that because T.H. waited approximately two years to challenge the timeliness of the CHINS dispositional hearing, the Morgan Circuit Court did not err by denying her motion to dismiss.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.