.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
CHINS: M C v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-06-23
The Court of Appeals of Indiana considered an appeal by M.C. (“Mother”) from the Decatur Circuit Court’s adjudication of her children, A.R. (born 2023) and R.M. (born 2025), as children in need of services (CHINS) under Indiana Code §§ 31-34-1-1 and 31-34-1-10, based solely on the children’s exposure to THC from the mother’s admitted marijuana use during pregnancy, while breastfeeding, and in the home. The trial court had entered a dispositional decree requiring a substance abuse assessment, treatment, and drug screens after finding that both children had been exposed to THC. The Court of Appeals reversed the adjudications. It held that the evidence failed to establish serious endangerment of the children, unmet needs, or that coercive state intervention was required, noting the absence of proof that the mother was impaired while parenting, that THC exposure caused any specific harm or developmental issues, or that the children’s medical or developmental needs were going unmet in an otherwise stable home with working utilities, food, and voluntary services. The court emphasized that a positive drug screen or parental drug use alone does not satisfy the statutory elements for a CHINS finding.
family law
Tamela J Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-06-22
Tamela J. Hollingsworth was convicted after a jury trial of two level 2 felonies for dealing in methamphetamine and a narcotic drug, based on evidence found during a traffic stop and vehicle search that followed GPS tracking authorized by a warrant. She appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting GPS data, laboratory chain-of-custody records, and evidence obtained after the warrant, and by allowing the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument that referenced her silence after arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that the warrant affidavit established probable cause through corroborated tips from confidential informants, that the GPS report and lab records met authentication and business-records requirements, and that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible rebuttal rather than an improper Doyle violation.
criminal lawprocedure
Unsupervised Estate: Elnor Bugher v. William Mark Bugher
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15
The case involves an appeal by Elnor Bugher from a trial court judgment ordering her to return approximately $3.2 million in funds from joint accounts with her late husband William C. Bugher (“Chick”) plus interest, and to convey their residential property to his estate, based on a 1986 divorce settlement agreement with his first wife that required Chick to leave his net estate to his two adult sons and barred him from defeating that obligation through joint ownership or gifts. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case. It held that under Indiana statutes governing multiple-party accounts (Ind. Code § 32-17-11-18) and tenancy by the entirety, the joint funds and the residential parcel passed to Elnor by operation of law upon Chick’s death as the surviving owner, absent clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent at the time the accounts or deed were created. The court further reasoned that the 1986 dissolution agreement could not validly control property acquired after the divorce or direct assets to the adult children, and that the sons had not complied with the requirements of the Nonprobate Transferees Act to assert claims against nonprobate transfers.
family lawproperty
Leslie Tomic v. Christopher M Vanduyne
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-05-04
In Leslie Tomic v. Christopher M. Vanduyne, a divorced couple disputed legal custody of their young child after the mother sought sole legal custody, citing communication breakdowns, disputes over therapy, and a child services investigation triggered by her report of alleged inappropriate conduct by the father. The trial court denied the mother's modification request, maintained joint legal custody, ordered counseling for the child, and imposed narrow limits on what either parent could discuss with the new counselor. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no abuse allegations had been substantiated, that the mother had used the counseling process to gain a litigation advantage rather than out of concern for the child, and that the evidence supported continued joint custody in the child's best interests. The court further concluded that the counseling restrictions were narrowly tailored to prevent misuse of the therapeutic process and did not violate the parents' free speech rights.
family lawfree speech
E D v. S C
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-05-01
In this case, E.D. appealed an Adams Circuit Court order finding that his consent was not required for S.C. to adopt E.D.’s child, A.D., after the child’s mother consented to the stepparent adoption and the trial court determined that statutory grounds under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8 were met. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on its own initiative. It held that the April 24, 2025 order was not a final judgment under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H) because it did not resolve the adoption petition itself or dispose of all claims as to all parties. The court also found the order was not an appealable interlocutory order under Appellate Rule 14, as E.D. had neither obtained trial-court certification nor identified any statutory right to immediate review. Following precedent such as In re Adoption of S.J., the opinion concluded that the consent ruling left the ultimate question of whether the adoption should be granted for later determination.
family lawprocedure
Chasity M. Turpen v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-04-30
The case involved Chasity M. Turpen, who pleaded guilty to public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor under a plea agreement that dismissed a related criminal mischief charge alleging damage to Whitney Baker’s car. The trial court later ordered Turpen to pay $946.96 in restitution for the car damage as a condition of probation and entered it as a civil judgment, even though the mischief count had been dismissed. Turpen appealed, arguing the restitution order was improper because it related to conduct for which she was not convicted. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order, holding that a defendant may not be required to pay restitution for losses stemming from an act that did not result in a conviction.
criminal lawprocedure