On rehearing, reverses that part of the CHINS court’s order that discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with the CHINS statutes, including any appropriate services for Mother.
N. Vaidik
Henriquez v. State, No. 20A04-1510-CR-1841, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2016).
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant of the earliest and latest possible release dates, but trial courts are not equipped to make this specific determination. Defendant was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates.
May v. State, 35A04-1603-CR-673, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2016).
Because defendants are placed on parole OR probation, and defendant complied with the terms of parole, it was reasonable for defendant not to report to probation before his release from parole and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
In re Guardianship of Morris, No. No. 34A02-1510-GU-1809, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, July 12, 2016).
The trial court should consider the effect of a power of attorney when determining if the appointment of a guardian is necessary.
In re J.B., No. 20A05-1510-JC-1612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2016).
The juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to modify the custody agreement made by the paternity court after the CHINS case was terminated.