• 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

In re R.L.., No. 20S-JC-296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 5, 2020).

May 11, 2020 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

DCS was barred from filing a successive CHINS action after the first petition was dismissed with prejudice. DCS “cannot engage in piecemeal litigation to get subsequent bites at the same apple.”

F.A. v. State, No. 19A-JV-2438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2020).

May 4, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

A juvenile may not be required to pay the costs of their secure detention. Moreover, before imposing costs of secure detention upon a parent, a court must inquire into the parent’s ability to pay; if the parent has the ability to pay, the trial court shall follow the applicable requirements related to the Child Support Rules and Guidelines.

In re M.S., No. 19S-JC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2020).

February 24, 2020 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

In a CHINS case, unlike the sixty-day deadline imposed by Ind. Code § 31-34-11-1(a) that may be waived by consent of the parties, the 120-day deadline contemplated by Ind. Code 31-34-11-1(b) may be enlarged only if a party shows good cause for a continuance.

B.B. v. State, No. 19A-JV-1803, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).

February 3, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

A threat expressed to an individual, even if that individual is not the intended victim, to interfere with the occupancy of a school (building), is sufficient to sustain an adjudication for an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult.

In re TPR of C.D., No. 19A-JT-1549, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2020).

February 3, 2020 Filed Under: Juvenile

Parents no longer have a fundamental right to consent to the adoption of child after their parental rights were terminated; the question of the proper adoptive home for child is a question for the adoption court.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • 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