Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 19 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In In Re: The Marriage of K.Z. and M.H., a 6-page opinion, Judge Bailey concludes:
Father should not be compelled to initiate paternity proceedings, as if the child were an out-of-wedlock child. Although the child was not born during the marriage, the child is – according to the parties’ affirmative representations to the court and statutory presumption – a child of the marriage.In State of Indiana v. Renee Lynch, an 8-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
As such, the dissolution court’s decision to modify the decree was not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. No injustice resulted from the grant of relief. Mother has demonstrated no abuse of discretion.
The State of Indiana appeals the trial court’s grant of Renee Lynch’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Lynch argues that because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, all evidence of her intoxication should be suppressed. We conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Lynch because she did not turn left at an intersection from the clearly marked turn-only lane. We therefore reverse the trial court.In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.M., G.M., and R.M.; A.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Dearborn County Office , a 4-page opinion in a petition for rehearing, the panel reaffirms its original opinion. Judge Bailey writes:
The DCS asserts that we have imposed an undue burden upon it by recognizing the DCS has to make a prima facie showing regarding current conditions before the parent is obliged to come forward with any evidence. According to the DCS, the parent who has been separated from his or her child bears the burden of going forward with evidence of changed conditions. The DCS also urges a “hierarchy” of evidence for consideration by the court, with evidence of historical conduct to be paramount over evidence of current or changed conditions.NFP civil opinions today (9):
We resolve these concerns with resort to the statutory guidance given to us by our Legislature. The DCS must prove each of the elements alleged in its petition; the “burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” * * *
In order for the court to properly reach a conclusion of law, it must have made some factual findings to support the conclusion. We reiterate: those factual findings must rest upon clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we affirm our original opinion.
NFP criminal opinions today (10):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 14, 2012 10:58 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions