Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After one of Mother’s five children, a toddler, was rushed to the emergency room and placed on a ventilator, Mother consented to the Department of Child Services (DCS) removing the other four children from her care to let her focus on the toddler’s treatment. DCS initiated child in need of services (CHINS) proceedings over all five of the children based on the toddler’s special medical needs and Mother’s lack of steady housing and other needs for the children. After a fact-finding hearing, the trial court released wardship to Mother’s four oldest children but did find the toddler in need of services because no one in the home had “completed the medical training needed” to meet the toddler’s special medical needs. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment that the toddler was a child in need of services, holding that because Mother had voluntarily addressed all but one of DCS’s concerns to the trial court’s satisfaction and because the evidence failed to show that Mother was likely to need the court’s coercive intervention to complete that final item, the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the toddler was a child in need of services. View "In re S.D." on Justia Law

Father murdered Mother in the presence of their two small children. Father's brother and his significant other (Guardians) were granted guardianship over the children. The paternal grandmother (Grandmother) petitioned to intervene in the guardianship for purposes of seeking grandparent visitation. Guardians argued that Grandmother lacked standing to petition for visitation. The trial court disagreed and granted limited visitation for Grandmother but later declared the grandparent visitation order void and vacated for want of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Grandmother lacked standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Grandmother lacked standing to file a grandparent visitation petition under the Grandparent Visitation Statute because she was not the grandparent of the deceased parent, nor was she the grandparent of a dissolved marriage. View "In re Guardianship of A.J.A." on Justia Law

Upon Father and Mother's divorce, Father and Mother agreed that Mother would assume sole financial responsibility of Child and waive enforcement of Father's child support arrearage in exchange for Father's agreement to waive his parenting time rights. The agreement also required Father to pay any support arrearage through the date of the trial court's approval of the agreement if Father sought parenting time in the future. Father subsequently sought modification of parenting time seeking to establish visitation with Child. The trial court denied Father's request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties' agreement to forego parenting time in exchange for relief from child support was void against public policy; and (2) the trial court's prohibition against Father exercising any parenting time with Child was not supported by the record. Remanded. View "Perkinson v. Perkinson" on Justia Law

The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) petitioned to terminate Mother and Father's parental rights regarding their three children. The trial court granted the petition, concluding that DCS provided clear and convincing evidence that the conditions resulting in the children's continued placement outside of the home would not be remedied and that termination of Mother and Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) DCS showed by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions resulting in placement outside Mother's home would not be remedied; and (2) the trial court did not err in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re K.T.K." on Justia Law

After Mother gave birth to an infant alone at home, Boyfriend took Mother and the infant to the hospital. Medical staff noticed puncture wounds on the infant's back and notified the authorities. An ensuing investigation resulted in the removal of the infant from Mother's care. The county prosecutor subsequently petitioned the trial court for subpoenas to compel Mother and Boyfriend to give testimony relating to the home birth of the infant. The trial court issued the subpoenas. Before Mother and Boyfriend testified, their attorney moved to quash the subpoenas pursuant to their rights against self-incrimination. The court granted the motion. The trial court then granted the prosecutor's petition for use immunity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor was not authorized to request a grant of use immunity; and (2) where, as here, no charges have been filed and no grand jury has been convened, a prosecutor may subpoena witnesses pursuant to Ind. Code 33-39-1-4, but if those witnesses invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination, the prosecutor cannot petition the court to grant them use immunity and compel them to testify without first filing charges or convening a grand jury. View "In re Prosecutor's Subpoena re S.H." on Justia Law

Child had contact with his paternal grandparents even after Mother married Stepfather. Later, Stepfather initiated a step-parent adoption of Child, and Mother curtailed the grandparent visits. Child's biological father (Father) contested the adoption, and Grandfather intervened in the proceedings to petition for a grandparent visitation order. The trial court granted Stepfather's adoption petition and granted Grandfather limited visitation of Child. The order also imposed no restrictions on Father's contact with Child. Mother appealed the visitation order. The Supreme Court remanded for new findings and conclusions, holding that the trial court's grandparent-visitation order was defective because it failed to (1) include findings that addressed four factors for balancing the parents' rights and the child's best interests and (2) limit the visitation award to an amount that did not substantially infringe on the parents' rights to control the upbringing of their children. View "K.J.R. v. M.A.B." on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with three counts of felony nonsupport of a defendant child. By the time the case went to trial, all three children were adults and emancipated. The trial court found Defendant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay the children's mother, "the victim in the case," the amount of his child-support arrearage. The trial court used the term "restitution" at the sentencing hearing. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions and length of sentence but determined that the court's order for Defendant to pay restitution to the mother as "the victim" was erroneous. The Supreme Court granted transfer and summarily affirmed the court of appeals on all issues but the issue of restitution and held that the trial court was within its discretion to determine that restitution was payable to a custodial parent, despite the fact that the children were emancipated. Remanded. View "Sickels v. State" on Justia Law

When Husband and Wife's marriage was dissolved in 2005, the trial court approved the settlement agreement reached by the parties following mediation. In 2011, Husband sought to modify the agreement. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court excluded from evidence Husband's testimony regarding statements he claimed to have made to the mediator during mediation. The court subsequently denied Husband's request for modification of his monthly housing payment obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court was correct to exclude Husband's mediation statements from evidence on his petition to modify the parties' settlement agreement; and (2) the trial court correctly rejected Husband's request for modification of his monthly housing payment obligation. View "Horner v. Carter" on Justia Law

In this case, a mother sought to relocate out-of-state with her child. The father filed a motion to modify custody and prevent the child's relocation. After an evidentiary hearing, which was conducted over two days with ten witnesses testifying, the trial court ruled in the father's favor. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reiterated that in family law matters, trial courts are afforded considerable deference. The Court then affirmed, holding that the trial court's judgment was well supported by the findings, and neither the judgment nor the findings were clearly erroneous. View "D.C. v. J.A.C." on Justia Law

When Sean and Dee Anna Ryan divorced, they agreed to sell two properties they owned and divide the proceeds, subject to a proviso that neither party was required to accept a sale yielding net proceeds below specified minimums. When the properties could not be sold at or above the specified minimums, Dee Anna refused to waive the proviso. Sean filed a motion for relief from judgment, seeking a court order that the properties be sold at prevailing fair market value and the private agreement be declared of no further force and effect. The trial court denied Sean's request. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) general rules applicable to contract construction dictated that Dee Anna was not required to agree to sell the properties for net proceeds less than the amounts set forth in the parties' agreement; and (2) Sean was not entitled to relief under Trial Rule 60(B), under which a court may relieve a party from a judgment. View "Ryan v. Ryan" on Justia Law