In a termination of parental rights case, parents’ due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to compel DCS to disclose the names and contact information of child’s foster parents because that information could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence.
M. DeBoer
In re E.K., No. 25A-JC-703, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2025).
The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.
Brown v. Charles Sturdevant Post of the American Legion Post #46, No. 25A-PL-513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025).
The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.
Ocampo v. State, No. 24A-CR-2785, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025).
The legality of a K9’s interior sniff of a vehicle before probable cause has been established to conduct a search is governed by the “instinctive entry rule,” under which a K9’s instinctive entry into a vehicle does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as it is not directed, encouraged, or facilitated by officers.
In re P.F., No. 25A-JC-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2025).
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.”