Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of K.D. & K.S. S.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.green2 sentences2019Cf., e.g., In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1258-59 (identifying a violation of due process where the court did not hold the requested fact-finding hearing and instead held a contested dispositional hearing); In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (identifying a violation under facts similar to those in In re K.D.), trans. denied; In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (identifying a violation where the court held a fact-finding hearing but “had already determined” the child was a CHINS in light of the other parent’s admission), aff’d on reh’g, trans. denied. [10] At bottom, F 2017Id. [17] The necessary takeaway after K.D. is that, although one parent’s admission may be sufficient to support a CHINS adjudication, it is not automatically sufficient. | 1 | 2 |
In the Matter of: S.A. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Servicesgreen1 sentence2019Cf., e.g., In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1258-59 (identifying a violation of due process where the court did not hold the requested fact-finding hearing and instead held a contested dispositional hearing); In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (identifying a violation under facts similar to those in In re K.D.), trans. denied; In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (identifying a violation where the court held a fact-finding hearing but “had already determined” the child was a CHINS in light of the other parent’s admission), aff’d on reh’g, trans. denied. [10] At bottom, F | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of: L.C. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and S.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Servicesgreen1 sentence2019Cf., e.g., In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d at 1258-59 (identifying a violation of due process where the court did not hold the requested fact-finding hearing and instead held a contested dispositional hearing); In re L.C., 23 N.E.3d 37, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (identifying a violation under facts similar to those in In re K.D.), trans. denied; In re S.A., 15 N.E.3d 602, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (identifying a violation where the court held a fact-finding hearing but “had already determined” the child was a CHINS in light of the other parent’s admission), aff’d on reh’g, trans. denied. [10] At bottom, F | 1 | 1 |
T.Y.T. v. Allen County Division of Family & Childrengreen1 sentence2011See In re T.Y.T., 714 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (“At a fact-finding hearing, the court decides only whether the child is a CHINS based upon the criteria set out in the CHINS statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re NE
green
2 sentences2012In In re N.E., this court was faced with determining if a *1256 child could be adjudicated a CHINS when allegations were made solely against a mother, and not a father. 919 N.E.2d at 104 . 2012As this Court noted in In re N.E., every CHINS proceeding “has the potential to interfere with the rights of parents in the upbringing of their children.” 919 N.E.2d 102 , 108 (Ind.2010). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2011It ordered both Mother and Father to take part in a number of services with a goal of reunification with T.N. *523 DECISION AND DISCUSSION Due process is essentially “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2011It ordered both Mother and Father to take part in a number of services with a goal of reunification with T.N. *523 DECISION AND DISCUSSION Due process is essentially “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.