Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On the day W.H. was born, seventeen-year-old J.M. signed an affidavit of paternity acknowledging W.H. was his child. More than a decade later county prosecutors sought a support order on behalf of the child's mother. J.M. filed a motion to set aside the paternity affidavit, which the trial court denied, holding his absence at a previous child support hearing ratified his signing of the affidavit. On appeal, the court of appeals held the trial court abused its discretion in denying J.M.'s motion and concluded that a material mistake of fact existed at the time J.M. executed the paternity affidavit. The court directed that the paternity affidavit be set aside and vacated the trial court's order adjudicating J.M. as the legal father and the order of support. On transfer, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision as to paternity and remanded the case to give J.M. the opportunity to challenge the paternity affidavit in the manner outlined in Ind. Code 16-37-2-2(h). View "J.M. v. M.A." on Justia Law

After being charged with two counts of child molesting, defendant Ronald Fromme asked the circuit court to require Crisis Connection, an organization that provides services to victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, to provide him with all of its records relating to the alleged victims. Crisis Connection argued that the state victim advocate privilege gave it authority to refuse the request. The circuit court ordered Crisis Connection to deliver the records to the court for its in camera review before turning them over to Fromme. Upon review, the court of appeals concluded that he privacy interest asserted by Crisis Connection was not strong enough to bar the in camera review. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the appellate court and reversed the order of the trial court, holding the state's compelling interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information gathered in the course of serving the needs of victims of violence and abuse was not outweighed by Fromme's right to present a complete defense. Accordingly, Fromme did not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of the records. In the absence of a violation of Fromme's constitutional rights, the Court applied the victim advocate privilege. View "Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Fromme" on Justia Law