Elaine B. Brown

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 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

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

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

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

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

The case involved a dispute between Daniel Boggs and Brenda Williams over real estate in Huntington, Indiana, that Williams claimed they held as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. After Williams filed a partition petition and mediation failed, the trial court granted her motion and ordered the parties to select an auctioneer to sell the property within 30 days, or face a sheriff’s sale. Boggs appealed, arguing the order was premature because he had filed a counterclaim challenging the validity of the joint tenancy deed and because the court had not followed required statutory steps. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the auction order, holding that the trial court failed to comply with Ind. Code Chapter 32-17-4, including the requirement to appoint a licensed appraiser before mediation or to hold a hearing allowing the parties to present evidence on their claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the partition statute.

propertyprocedure

Aaron Gregory Fowler was convicted after a jury trial of 23 felony counts arising from his sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl, including multiple counts of child molesting, child solicitation, child exploitation, sexual misconduct with a minor, possession of child pornography, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and attempted obstruction of justice as a Level 5 felony. On appeal, Fowler challenged the admission of certain evidence at trial and argued that the State failed to prove the obstruction charge. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support the attempted obstruction conviction because Fowler’s intercepted jail letter, which offered payment to have a third party falsely authenticate a witness statement as having been written by someone else, constituted a substantial step toward inducing false testimony or statements in a criminal proceeding under the relevant statutes.

criminal lawguns

In this Indiana Court of Appeals case, divorced parents James Irwin Richter (Father) and Neha Bhatnagar Richter (Mother) disputed legal custody of their child (born 2011), Father's child support payments, and issuance of the child's passport after the child reached high school age. The trial court granted Mother sole legal custody, recalculated Father's support obligation using his self-employment income from tax returns, and authorized the child's passport solely for school-related international travel, requiring Father's cooperation with paperwork while placing costs and possession controls on Mother. The court identified a substantial change in circumstances from the child's upcoming high school opportunities and ongoing parental conflicts that made joint legal custody unworkable, while finding the passport served the child's best interests under supervised conditions. Father appealed these modifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders in full.

family law

The case concerned a contract dispute in which Lee Trost paid contractors John Sayre and Sam the Concrete Man $14,850 to install a concrete patio at his Indiana home; the work resulted in mismatched colors between sections, misaligned joints, incorrect corners, damaged property, and incomplete cleanup despite multiple repair attempts by the contractors. Trost sued for breach of contract, negligence, and violations of Indiana’s Home Improvement Contracts Act. Following a bench trial, the Hamilton Superior Court credited Trost’s evidence over the contractors’, found liability on the breach and negligence claims, and awarded $19,961 in damages covering the deposit, repair costs, and patio removal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court’s credibility determinations and that the contractors had failed to perform as required under the agreement, while the damages award properly restored Trost to the benefit of the bargain without excess.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In this case, A.D. appealed a trial court order for her temporary involuntary civil commitment at Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove she had a mental illness or met the criteria for commitment under Indiana law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the commitment order. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings, relying on the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Ishrat Bhat, who diagnosed A.D. with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, described her manic and psychotic symptoms, lack of insight into her condition, history of non-compliance with medication leading to repeated hospitalizations, and inability to function independently without support. The opinion noted that the statute does not require a definitive diagnosis and found the evidence comparable to prior cases upholding commitments based on expert assessments of mental illness and grave disability.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the estate of Beverly K. Webster, in which her son Christopher D. Webster challenged the will’s distribution of real property and personal effects, along with claims of tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty by the co-personal representatives (Christina and Katie). After mediation, the parties entered a settlement agreement requiring Chris and his brother Bill to pay $32,200, cover attorney fees, and dismiss the will contest; the trial court approved the agreement and converted the estate to supervised administration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders finding Chris in default, holding that he failed to make any payments by the October 12, 2023 deadline, did not pay his share of fees, and did not dismiss the contest as required, while Bill complied with the payment terms. The court concluded these breaches supported the trial court’s enforcement of the agreement without reversal.

family lawpropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The State of Indiana appealed a Boone Circuit Court order that found S.L., the son of Penny Lane, emancipated as of his eighteenth birthday and terminated Mother’s obligation to pay child support to his adult sister and former guardian. The trial court had granted Mother’s motion on the same day it was filed, relying on the end of a guardianship proceeding and Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(3)(A). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that emancipation under the statute requires competent evidence that the child took the initiative to place himself outside parental control and became self-supporting. Because the record contained no such evidence and the trial court held no hearing, the order terminating support was erroneous.

family law

The case involved a defamation lawsuit filed by Shaw Friedman, then LaPorte County Attorney, against Timothy Stabosz, the county auditor, over statements made in emails and on social media. After a jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for Stabosz; Friedman then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted more than thirty days after a hearing, ordering a new trial on the ground that it had given an incorrect jury instruction. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Indiana Trial Rule 53.3(A) automatically deemed the motion denied once the thirty-day period expired without a ruling, rendering the later order void. The court vacated the trial court’s belated orders and reinstated the jury verdict, while declining to reach most issues raised on cross-appeal because they were either not preserved or fell under the deemed-denied motion.

proceduretorts & liability

Taylor Mitchell Fischer appealed his convictions for neglect of a dependent resulting in death as a level 1 felony and two counts of neglect of a dependent as level 6 felonies, stemming from the September 2023 death of his eleven-month-old son C.F. in the family home in Evansville, where police found drug paraphernalia and evidence that the child had ingested fentanyl and other substances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the two level 6 felony convictions but reversed the level 1 felony conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge. The court held that a toxicology report was improperly admitted into evidence as hearsay because the State failed to establish the requisite foundation through expert testimony or the business records exception, and that the error was not harmless given the report’s central role in proving both the cause of death and Fischer’s knowing endangerment of the child.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of the Woodburn Farm in Indiana after siblings Janette Sue Jackson, Jody Ann Stanley, and Jeffrey Lynn Jackson challenged their brother Jay Thomas Jackson’s claimed interest under a 2012 warranty deed executed by their mother, Delores Taylor. The trial court granted summary judgment to Jay, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling. The court held that the first deed contained errors in its legal description and did not reflect the mother’s intent, as shown by her subsequent will explicitly excluding Jay from the farm, a letter from the county auditor demanding corrections, and a second corrective deed she executed that conveyed the property only to herself and the three siblings as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The appellate court concluded that the siblings presented clear and convincing evidence of unilateral mistake in the first deed, that the second deed aligned with the mother’s actual intent, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding her donative intent, warranting reversal and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to the siblings and dismiss Jay’s complaint.

property

Sarah L. Shake sued the State of Indiana for negligence after a vehicle driven by Kenneth Rogers collided with her car, alleging that an Indiana State Police trooper’s pursuit of Rogers for speeding proximately caused the crash. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The designated evidence showed that the trooper briefly pursued Rogers after he fled a traffic stop, terminated the pursuit within about twenty seconds upon determining it was unsafe, lost sight of the vehicle, and arrived at the accident scene roughly one minute later; Shake had not seen or heard any police activity beforehand. The court held that the trooper’s reasonable and limited pursuit was not the proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law, because Rogers independently chose to continue driving recklessly after evading the officer.

torts & liability

Jeremiah R. Mitchell appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify the terms of his probation, specifically seeking to remove no-contact orders with his wife and children. Mitchell had pleaded guilty in December 2024 to one count of domestic battery as a level 6 felony and one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor, pursuant to a plea agreement that expressly made the previously issued no-contact orders a continuing term of his probation. The trial court denied the modification request, finding it lacked authority to alter the terms without the State’s consent. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no-contact orders are punitive conditions that must be specified in the plea agreement and therefore cannot be removed without the State’s agreement.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In State of Indiana v. Dennis R. Poland, Jr., the State appealed a trial court order granting Poland’s motion to suppress blood-draw evidence taken without a warrant after he was involved in a fatal multi-vehicle crash on U.S. 52 in April 2022. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the blood draw did not violate Poland’s rights under the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The court found exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search because a fatality had occurred, the scene was chaotic, dashcam footage and witness statements arrived with delay, ISP reconstruction was needed, and Poland was being prepared for emergency airlift while unconscious. It further concluded that the degree of intrusion was minimal, as a nurse drew the blood from an existing IV line, while law enforcement had a strong interest in promptly investigating possible impaired driving in a deadly accident.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Maria Navarette purchased four properties at a tax sale in Elkhart County and was required to send statutory notices to the record owners by July 21, 2024, to obtain tax deeds after the redemption period ended on August 21, 2024. Her attorney sent the notices late, after which Navarette filed petitions asking the trial court to extend the redemption period so she could comply with the notice requirements under IC 6-1.1-25. The trial court denied the petitions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that equitable relief from tax-sale deadlines is available only when a party relies on a material misrepresentation by another interested party during the statutory process; here the delay resulted solely from Navarette’s own attorney’s mistake, not from any incorrect information provided by the county or other parties. Because the tax-sale statutes require strict compliance and no injustice arises from applying those rules, the court concluded the trial court properly denied the extension requests.

taxespropertyprocedure