J.B. v. E.B. (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.)-Child custody modification proceeding based on report the son had touched his sister inappropriately was not subject to the counselor/client privilege, so that records of son’s counseling were admissible.
D.C. v. State, No. 49A02-1002-JV-100, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2010)
Delinquency disposition statutes do not allow juvenile court to order both determinate and indeterminate commitments to DOC.
In the Matter of M.R., No. 49A05-1002-JC-140, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 14, 2010)
When his paternity had not been established and no petition for participation had been filed, the juvenile court had no authority to order asserted father’s parental participation in CHINS services.
Fisher v. Giddens, No. 48A02-1002-EU-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2010)
When limited partner bought annuity in the name of the limited partnership and then had it put in his own name for tax purposes, the annuity remained partnership property despite the name change.
Kennedy v. State, No. 89A04-0907-CR-380, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2010)
Defense attack on technical details of DNA testing went to the weight, not admissibility, of DNA identification evidence.