Trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required to reunify child with parents; there was insufficient evidence that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision (Ind. Code 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7)) were proven. “Removed from the home of the child’s parent…under a dispositional decree” necessarily means that the child was placed outside the parent’s home for any period of time pursuant to a dispositional decree. A trial home visit at a parent’s house is not “removal.”
Appeals
In re Paternity of G.S., No. 25A-AD-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2025).
Paternity proceeding was not required to be transferred to the county where adoption was pending.
Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2025).
Generative AI can produce citations to non-existent authorities, and the Court cautioned litigants to verify citations before including them in briefs.
In re P.R., No. 25A-JC-825, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2025).
Special judge could have a magistrate cover a hearing, but not the same magistrate that previously heard the merits of the case before the change of judge was filed.
Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind., Ky., Inc. v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., No. 24A-PL-2467, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2025).
The right to an abortion that is protected under Article 1, Section 1 requires the abortion to be a necessary procedure to protect the woman’s life or to protect her from a serious health risk, and requires the determination that an abortion is necessary to be a reasonable medical judgment. The statutory Hospital Requirement also does not impair the constitutional right to an abortion.