When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.
J.B. v. State, No. 22A-JV-612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).
Where a videotaped interview of a child victim is entered into evidence erroneously because it did not meet the cited exceptions to the rule against hearsay, where the defendant had no right to confront the child victim, and where the record contains no other evidence of the elements of the alleged delinquent act, the admission of the videotaped interview constitutes fundamental error.
In re K.V., LP, No. 22A-JC-987, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 13, 2023).
DCS was not required to make a reasonable effort to reunify children with foster parents when it was not in the children’s best interest. Foster parents were not entitled to intervene in CHINS case.
In re K.G., No. 22A-MI-502, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2022).
Trial court did not have the statutory authority to grant request to amend child’s birth certificate to change child’s gender marker.
In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of P.B., No. 22A-JT-1397, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2022).
The clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases satisfies the Indiana Constitution’s Due Course of Law Clause.