When a parent, having abandoned a child, dies in that state of abandonment, the child’s inability to reunify with that parent is still due to abandonment for purposes of the Special Immigrant Juvenile statute
Juvenile
B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).
Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.
In re I.E., No. 23A-JC-2399, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).
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.
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.