• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Juvenile

J.L. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 32A01-1010-JC-532, ___N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2011).

July 15, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

A judge can cite statutes and facts not in CHINS petition.

D.M. v. State, No. 49S02-1101-JV-11, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind., June 22, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.

D.G. v. State, No. 49A04-1006-JV-416, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2011)

April 15, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Since there was no recording of the sidebar conference at which defense counsel assertedly objected to alleged molesting victim’s competence to testify, and the parties could not agree as to what was said in the conference, defense counsel was assumed to have made the objection, and the failure of the trial court or of prosecuting counsel to then question the witness and assess her competence required reversal of the delinquency finding.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.S.O., No. 64A05-1005-JT-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Riley

Failure of Child Services to provide father with notice of hearings and copies of all orders in the CHINS phase of proceedings, when Child Services knew father’s name and whereabouts, violated Due Process and required reversal of termination of father’s parental rights.

S.D. v. State, No. 49A02-1004-JV-442, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Juvenile waiver statute’s meaningful consultation requirement was not met when juvenile’s conversation with guardian was videotaped by police and juvenile and guardian knew it was being taped.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs