12TH DISTRICT
DECISIONS
MARCH 6, 2023
In re X.L.L.
CA2022-03-003
"Consideration" of the best interest factors for a legal custody analysis does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best interest factors. Even though the juvenile court did not explicitly enumerate each of the best interest factors, it is clear from the record that it considered the relevant best interest factors. The child's marked improvement during his placement with the relative, coupled with several concerning behaviors which characterized appellant's custody demonstrated the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
Byrne
Brown
***
Lykins v. Hale
CA2022-07-037
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering a motion to exclude an expert witness even though the motion was brought after a deadline contained in a scheduling order. The trial court informed both parties that it did not want any "surprises" at trial and evidence came to light that appellant's expert report had been plagiarized, rendering it unreliable. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to continue to find a new expert witness. The trial court was not obligated to further delay these proceedings to that the appellant could once again secure a new expert. Furthermore, appellant should have recognized that his proposed expert witness plagiarized a prior expert that was previously retained.
Piper
Clermont
***
State v. Harding
CA2022-09-019
The trial court did not err by denying appellant's third successive petition for postconviction relief where appellant's claims raised in support of his most recent petition were barred by the doctrine of res judicata given that appellant had raised the same or substantially similar arguments previously at trial and through multiple appeals and two prior postconviction relief petitions.
S. Powell
Madison
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.