The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.
Juvenile
In re P.F., No. 25A-JC-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2025).
Trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required to reunify child with parents; there was insufficient evidence that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision (Ind. Code 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7)) were proven. “Removed from the home of the child’s parent…under a dispositional decree” necessarily means that the child was placed outside the parent’s home for any period of time pursuant to a dispositional decree. A trial home visit at a parent’s house is not “removal.”
D.W. v. State, No. 25S-JV-190, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jul. 23, 2025).
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.
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.