In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”
Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”
Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.
Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”
“We hold that pending criminal charges do not violate a defendant’s right to due process if (1) the trial court has not involuntarily committed the defendant and (2) the trial court has not made an appropriate finding that the defendant will never be restored to competency. We also hold that . . . the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).”