balancing of three factors in Indiana

2025Due process turns on the balancing of three factors: “(1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011).

2025Overall, “[t]he process due in a termination of parental rights proceeding turns on the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-JT-917 | October 23, 2025 Page 11 of 22 procedure; and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.” C.G., 954 N.E.2d at 917 .

2002In A.P. v. Porter County Office of Family & Children, this court acknowledged that due process in parental rights involves the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing government interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. 734 N.E.2d 1107 , 1112 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2002In A.P. v. Porter County Office of Family & Children, this court acknowledged that due process in parental rights involves the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing government interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. 734 N.E.2d 1107 , 1112 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2020Citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), this court has recently acknowledged that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding, (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure, and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.

2020Citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), this court has recently acknowledged that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding, (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure, and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.

2010Assessing whether a parent's due process rights have been violated in a termination proceeding "turns on the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding, (2) the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure, and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure." C.C., 788 N.E.2d at 852.

2010Assessing whether a parent's due process rights have been violated in a termination proceeding "turns on the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding, (2) the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure, and (8) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure." C.C., 788 N.E.2d at 852.

2015In Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 , our supreme court developed a useful tool for analyzing whether a duty exists, which requires the balancing of three factors: “(1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion | 88A01-1410-CT-440 | June 23, 2015 Page 9 of 17 public policy concerns.” In the present case, the parties agree that the three-part Webb test is the proper analysis for determining whether Empire Gas owed a duty of care to the Tenants.

2015“This-analysis involves a balancing of three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns.” Kramer v. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Fort Wayne-S. Bend, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 227, 233 (Ind.2015) (citing Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 996 ). [19] Regarding the relationship between the parties, Michalik was a guest in the home Martin shared with Brothers.

2015“This-analysis involves a balancing of three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns.” Kramer v. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Fort Wayne-S. Bend, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 227, 233 (Ind.2015) (citing Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 996 ). [19] Regarding the relationship between the parties, Michalik was a guest in the home Martin shared with Brothers.

2015“This analysis involves a balancing of three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns.” Kramer v. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Fort Wayne- S. Bend, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 227, 233 (Ind. 2015) (citing Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 996 ). [19] Regarding the relationship between the parties, Michalik was a guest in the home Martin shared with Brothers.

2013Id.

2013C.T. v. Marion County DCS, 896 N.E.2d 571, 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2019I.P., 5 N.E.3d at 751-52 ; G.P., 4 N.E.3d at 1165 .

2014“Ultimately, the resulting balance of those factors must provide ‘the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158, 1166 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).

2014“Due process in parental-rights cases involves the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing government interest supporting the use of the challenged procedure.” Id.

2014S.L. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114, 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011) (citing A.P. v. Porter Cnty.

2010Heck, 786 N.E.2d at 268 .

2006Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind.2003) (citations omitted).

2023Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005) establishes the test for the reasonableness of a search or seizure pursuant to Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and prescribes a balancing of three factors: 1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.

2020A due process analysis in a CHINS adjudication turns on the balancing of three factors: “(1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the States chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.” In re K.D., 962 N.E.2d 1249, 1257 (Ind. 2012).

2014In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d at 16. 5 Due process in parental-rights cases involves the balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing government interest supporting the use of the challenged procedure.

2012The balancing of these factors recognizes that although due process is not dependent on the underlying facts of the particular case, it is nevertheless “flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” D.A. v. Monroe County Dep’t of Child Serv., 869 N.E.2d 501, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

2007Assessing whether a parent’s due process rights have been violated in a termination proceeding involves the balancing of three factors: “(1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing government interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.” A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d at 900.