A juvenile court has a mandatory obligation to offer a formal advisement of rights under the Advisement Statute – Ind. Code 31-37-12-5. In addition, a waiver of a juvenile’s constitutional, statutory, or otherwise afforded rights must be done through personal interrogation of the juvenile, by the court, to ensure the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Juvenile
State v. B.H., No. 25S-JV-47, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 30, 2025)
Even when Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2 authorizes the State to seek an appeal, the State must still comply with the appellate rules. This includes complying with the thirty-day time limit to file a notice of appeal when, following the entry of a final judgment, a trial court rules on a timely motion to correct error.
In re E.K., No. 24S-JC-300, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
Courts can amend a CHINS petition on a party’s request to include CHINS allegations not pled by DCS when doing so serves the child’s best interests and does not prejudice the child’s rights. The best practice is for the court and counsel on all sides to determine at the earliest opportunity whether any party might request adjudication under an alternative CHINS category.
JQR v. State, No. 24S-JV-298, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).
Trial court abused its discretion by admitting a juvenile’s statements into evidence without a valid waiver of right. An adverse interest may arise if the evidence shows an adult waives the juvenile’s rights but stands to personally benefit from the waiver to the child’s detriment.
In re W.H., No. 24A-JC-2241, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 7, 2025).
Because the court was required to order preparation of a predispositional report in a CHINS case, and the report had to be provided to the parties prior to the dispositional hearing, the report did not need to be admitted into evidence to be part of the record that the juvenile court could consider.