11 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family & Childrengreen2 sentences2016Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding no error when the court conducted a review hearing and a permanency hearing at the same time when the appellant provided no authority to support her contention that the simultaneous hearings denied her due process). 2014“Due process rights are subject to waiver, and claims are generally waived if raised for the first time on appeal.” Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing In 4 re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 , 834 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (finding waiver of claimed due process violation for lack of a permanency hearing because alleged violation was raised for first time on appeal)), trans. denied; accord McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding waiver of alleged procedural due process violation in CHINS proceeding because due proc | 2 | 2 |
In Re KSgreen2 sentences2014“Due process rights are subject to waiver, and claims are generally waived if raised for the first time on appeal.” Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing In 4 re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 , 834 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (finding waiver of claimed due process violation for lack of a permanency hearing because alleged violation was raised for first time on appeal)), trans. denied; accord McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding waiver of alleged procedural due process violation in CHINS proceeding because due proc 2010See, In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 , 834 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (noting waiver of a claimed due process violation for lack of a permanency hearing because the allegation of error was raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 3 |
In the Matter of: D.W. (Minor Child), and, T.W. (Mother) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Servicesgreen1 sentence2017See In re D.W., 52 N.E.3d at 841 . | 1 | 1 |
Pigg v. Stategreen1 sentence2014“Due process rights are subject to waiver, and claims are generally waived if raised for the first time on appeal.” Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing In 4 re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 , 834 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (finding waiver of claimed due process violation for lack of a permanency hearing because alleged violation was raised for first time on appeal)), trans. denied; accord McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding waiver of alleged procedural due process violation in CHINS proceeding because due proc | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship of B.H.green1 sentence2014In In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287-88 (Ind.2002), our supreme court set out the applicable standard of review: Despite the differences among Indiana’s appellate court decisions confronting child placement disputes between natural parents and other persons, most of the cases generally recognize the important and strong presumption that the child’s best interests are ordinarily served by placement in the custody of the natural parent. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Marion County Department of Public Welfaregreen1 sentence2003Similarly, in Smith v. Marion County Dept. of Public Welfare, 635 N.E.2d 1144, 1148 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied, we held that a father waived his claim that he had a constitutional right to appointed counsel during a CHINS proceeding because he presented the issue for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ap v. Pcofc
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 1114–17. 2019Id. at 1117 . | 3 | 2003–2020 |
In Re IA
green
1 sentence2018Id. [6] A permanency hearing was held on February 23, 2017, and the juvenile court adopted a plan for the termination of parental rights for each child. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2016However, based on the context of the finding, it is clear that this is simply a typographical error and the finding should have read ‘mother has not demonstrated her ability….’ Finding 49 states “On August 6, 2014, a Permanency hearing was held, and the case plan of TPR, Adoption, and Legal Guardianship for [B.B.] was approved.” Id. 2016However, based on the context of the finding, it is clear that this is simply a typographical error and the finding should have read ‘mother has not demonstrated her ability….’ Finding 49 states “On August 6, 2014, a Permanency hearing was held, and the case plan of TPR, Adoption, and Legal Guardianship for [B.B.] was approved.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Paternity of SRI
green
2 sentences2016Alleged Father #2 testified at the permanency hearing that Mother told him that he was Child’s biological father. [18] The Indiana Supreme Court has observed that “there is a substantial public policy in correctly identifying parents and their offspring.” In re Paternity of S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d 1014 , 1016 (Ind. 1992). 2016“Proper identification of parents and child should prove to be in the best interests of the child for medical or psychological reasons.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.