A litigant’s failure to appear at a hearing should be addressed using the indirect contempt procedure which requires a rule to show cause and a hearing. The trial court erred by relying upon information obtained from the drug testing facility by its court reporter without her testimony under oath.
E. Tavitas
Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).
“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”
Marion Superior Court Probation Dept. v. Trapuzzano, No. 23A-CT-61, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2023).
The probation department has quasi-judicial immunity from liability.
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.
In re Z.H., No. 23A-JC-1120, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 27, 2023).
The filing of a motion to dismiss does not mandate dismissal of a CHINS case; the decision rests in the trial court’s discretion. Trial courts should review the reasons proffered in support of dismissal in light of the evidence and allegations and then determine whether dismissal is in the child’s best interests.