When the permanency plan for a child adjudicated a CHINS provides for appointment of a guardian under Ind. Code 31-34-21-7.7, the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian. The trial judge cannot “open” the guardianship without a guardianship petition and notice.
Juvenile
In re Adoption of M.J.H., No. 23A-AD-2769, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2024).
Ind. Code chapter 31-19-5, governing the putative father registry, applies where a mother does not consent to an adoption. The relevance of a mother’s execution of consent to an adoption is merely the timing for her to provide information about a putative father.
Brown v. State, No. 23A-CR-330, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2024).
A twenty-one-year-old falls into the jurisdictional gap our Indiana Supreme Court identified in D.P. and Neukam. While statutes that became effective on July 1, 2023, cured this jurisdictional gap, retroactive application of these statutes violate a defendant’s right under the United States Constitution to be free of ex post facto laws.
G.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-246, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 10, 2024).
When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse. Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Ind. App. R. 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance.
A.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2024).
Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.