Lawyer course

Opinions September 8, 2022 – The Indiana Advocate

Indiana Court of Appeals
James Robert Ward v. Indiana State (dec. brief)
22A-CR-676
Criminal. Upholds convictions of James Ward on two counts of Class B criminal sexual misconduct with a minor. Finds Ward failed to establish that TZ’s testimony was incredibly dubious.

Jennifer Jeffries v. Indiana State (dec. brief)
22A-CR-702
Criminal. Upholds the Superior Court’s imposition of the suspended sentence on Jennifer Jeffries following the revocation of her probation. Finds that the court of first instance did not abuse its discretionary power.

Regarding the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship of ED and AC (minor children) and JC (mother) and RD (father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (Dec. Mem.)
22A-JT-579
Juvenile breach of parental rights. Confirms the termination of the parental rights of mother JC and father RD over their children, ED and AC Find that JC and RD have not demonstrated that the termination order was manifestly erroneous. Also finds that RD failed to demonstrate that he was denied due process when his attorney failed to request an extension while RD failed to appear on the second day of the termination hearing.

In the matter of the termination of the parent-child relationship of AB-A. (minor child); SB (mother) and MA (father) c. Indiana Department of Children’s Services (dec. brief)
22A-JT-524
Juvenile breach of parental rights. Confirms the termination of parental rights of mother SB and father MA over their son, AB-A. Finds that the Monroe Circuit Court did not clearly err in determining that there was a reasonable likelihood of the conditions that led to AB-A’s removal. MA’s care or continued placement away from the father’s home would not be remedied, or in concluding there was a reasonable likelihood that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being of AB- HAS. Also finds that the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence. Finally, finds that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision that the termination was in AB-A’s best interests.