« Ind. Decisions - SC of IND posts one opinion today | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Governor Pence appoints nominating commission members for IURC" »

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist, a 13-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

We first acknowledge that the trial court was faced with an extremely difficult—and almost Solemnic—decision in this case. More particularly, we must determine whether the trial court properly entered an order restricting the custodial parent, appellant-petitioner, Charity Lindquist (Mother), from permitting her and former husband, appellee-respondent, Cory Lindquist’s (Father) (collectively, the parents), children to continue an unsupervised relationship with Mother’s boyfriend when Father is not otherwise entitled to be with them under the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines (Guidelines). The trial court’s order noted that Mother’s relationship with her boyfriend was undermining and interfering with Father’s relationship with the children. As a result, Mother contends that her constitutional right to due process was violated along with her right of freedom of association.

After reviewing the evidence, we initially observe that the trial court’s determination that Mother was in contempt for denying Father his Christmas 2012 time must be affirmed. However, because there is no evidence that Mother is an unfit parent or that permitting the children to spend unsupervised time with Mother’s boyfriend violated the children’s best interests or that he posed a danger or detriment to the children, we must conclude that this portion of the order was too restrictive and, therefore, the trial court improperly determined that the children were not permitted to spend any “one on one” unsupervised time with Mother’s boyfriend. As a result, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court with instructions that it craft an order that will not deny Father the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time in accordance with the Guidelines, but also to permit the children to interact with Mother’s boyfriend on an unsupervised basis should Mother so desire, so long as Father’s relationship with the children is not undermined or thwarted.

In Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana, a 10-page opinion, Sr. Judge Sullivan writes:
Anthony Smith was convicted by a jury of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly violating a protective order. He now appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm.
NFP civil opinions today (2):

Paul D. Schoolman v. Tamzen L. Schoolman (NFP)

Jacquelyn S. Johnson-Taefi v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and AME Cleaning Services, LLC (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Zachariah Brownie v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joseph Rothell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeffrey Allen Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 12, 2013 01:11 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions