Legal Opinion · Concurrence

T.P. v. Child Advocates, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 29, 2013No. 49A02-1303-JT-283Published

1ConcurrenceVaidik, Judge

In this case, the majority concludes that Father’s due-process rights were not violated when Magistrate Bradley reviewed the record and reported findings and conclusions to Judge Moores, despite the fact that Magistrate Bradley did not preside over the underlying evidentiary hearing. I respectfully concur in result because I agree, but my reasoning differs from the majority’s.4 I believe that Magistrate Bradley did not err because the underlying evidence was undisputed and did not require him to make any credibility determinations.

The State must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Urbanational Developers, Inc. v. Shamrock Engineering, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Z.G. v. Marion County Department of Child ServicesIndiana Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Castro v. State Office of Family & ChildrenIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.P. v. Porter County Office of Family & ChildrenIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Farner v. FarnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API