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.
E. Tavitas
Atkins v. State, No. 19A-CR-951, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 3, 2020).
Implied adverse consequences and orders to sit down uttered by law enforcement to a suspect, coupled with other factors, may constitute “custody” for purposes of triggering Pirtle and/or Miranda advisements.
In re Paternity of M.S., No. 19A-JP-1595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2020).
The time period relevant to establishing a de facto custodianship excludes any period of time after a child custody proceeding has been commenced and while it is pending. After a child custody proceeding has been commenced and has concluded, however, the calculation of the time relevant to a de facto custodian determination is not tolled.
B.B. v. State, No. 19A-JV-1803, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2020).
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.
Peele v. State, No. 19A-CR-1775, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2020).
An individual may either file a petition for removal from the sex offender registry in a separate, civil cause or within a criminal cause under a qualifying court.