Opinions May 2, 2022

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Court of Appeals of Indiana
In Re: The Change of Gender of: O.J.G.S., A Minor, S.G.S.
21A-MI-2096
Miscellaneous. Affirms the Allen Circuit Court’s denial of S.G.S’s petition on remand to change the gender marker on her minor transgender daughter’s birth certificate pursuant to Indiana Code § 16-37-2-10. Finds that I.C. 16-37-2-10 has been improperly interpreted and does not grant Indiana courts the authority to order a change of a gender marker on a birth certificate. Urges the Indiana Supreme Court to speak on the matter. Judge L. Mark Bailey concurs in result with separate opinion. Judge Paul D. Mathias dissents with separate opinion.

Rodrick L. Davis v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-2089
Criminal. Affirms Rodrick L. Davis’ convictions of Level 3 felony burglary, Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony invasion of privacy. Finds the Allen Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Davis’ subsequent bad acts. Also finds the evidence was sufficient to support Davis’ conviction for Level 3 felony burglary.

Zachary Aaron Woodward v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-1229
Criminal. Reverses Zachary Woodward’s conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm as a serious violent felon but affirms his conviction of Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds the state failed to produce sufficient evidence of Woodward’s identity with respect to a prior felony underlying the possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Also finds the Decatur Superior Court did not err in admitting a laboratory report. Finally, finds there was sufficient evidence to sustain Woodward’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Remands for further proceedings.

Monte G. Faulkner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1662
Criminal. Affirms the Howard Circuit Court’s denial of Monte Faulkner’s motion for severance of charges. Finds the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. Remands for further proceedings.

Nancy Iris Sperling v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1901
Criminal. Affirms Nancy Sperling’s three-year sentence in the Department of Correction, with 1½ years executed and 1½ years suspended to probation, for her conviction of Level 5 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injury. Finds the Sullivan Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion with regard to mitigating factors. Also finds Sperling’s sentence is not inappropriate.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.B., Mother, T.L., Father, and C.L., Minor Child, K.B. and T.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and D.D. (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-1973
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother K.B. and father T.L.’s parental rights to their child, C.L. Finds the juvenile court made findings sufficient to terminate parents’ parental rights, and those findings are supported by the evidence. Also finds the parents have failed to establish reversible error.

In the Matter of the Adoption of T.A. and F.T., Minor Children, F.A. v. D.M. and R.M. (mem. dec.)
21A-AD-2342
Adoption. Affirms the Allen Superior Court’s conclusion that father F.A.’s consent to the adoption of his children was unnecessary because he had failed to provide adequate financial or in-kind support to his children for at least one year. Finds the trial court did not err.

In the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.S., D.S., T.S., and Z.S. (Minor Children) and J.S. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-2374
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother J.S.’s parental rights to her four children. Finds sufficient evidence showed that termination of J.S.’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Also finds the juvenile court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}