“[A]n automatic presumption that any adult child who assists an aging parent is presumed to be in a dominant role and exert undue influence over that parent’s decisions is ill-advised.”
Appeals
Ind. Division of Child Services, LaPorte County v. LaPorte County CASA, NO. 46A04-0902-JV-78, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)
Periodic CHINS placement review was transformed into a modification proceeding, so that court’s modification contrary to DCS recommendation was subject to expedited appeal procedure.
Harrison v. State, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)
“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.
Young v. State, No. 06A01-0808-CR-395, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)
Affirms condition not to drive during entire eight year probation period, even though it was six years more than the maximum statutory license suspension.
McReynolds v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-432, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2009)
Live-in child caretaker had no more authority over the child than a babysitter, was not acting in loco parentis, and consequently could not invoke the parental discipline privilege in prosecution for battery on the child.