A litigant’s failure to appear at a hearing should be addressed using the indirect contempt procedure which requires a rule to show cause and a hearing. The trial court erred by relying upon information obtained from the drug testing facility by its court reporter without her testimony under oath.
Juvenile
D.H. v. A.C., No. 23A-JT-1369, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 21, 2023).
If a child was conceived as a result of “an act of rape,” the victim-parent can seek to terminate the rights of the perpetrator-parent. “Act of rape” is defined in statute as (1) “an act described in” the rape statute or (2) an act of child molesting (where the victim is under fourteen) involving deadly force, a deadly weapon, serious injury, or drugging.
T.D. v. State, No. 23S-JV-110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2023).
When a court fails to confirm or secure a waiver as required by the Juvenile Waiver Statute, Trial Rule 60(B) is the appropriate avenue for a juvenile to challenge their agreed delinquency adjudication. Because the judgment is voidable, rather than void, when the Juvenile Waiver Statute is violated, Rule 60(B)(8) is the proper vehicle for a juvenile to collaterally attack their adjudication.
M.H. v. State, No. 22S-JV-251, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2023).
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.