Ford v. State, 18216
| Decision Date | 19 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 18216,18216 |
| Parties | FORD et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Allen & Allen, South Bend, for appellant George Ford.
Theodore E. Prekowitz, South Bend, for appellant Helen Ford.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Clyde H. Jones, Chief Counsel, Indianapolis, Oscar C. Crawford, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Juvenile Court of St. Joseph County refusing to set aside its judgment making a minor child a ward of said court.
The record discloses that on January 15, 1951 the chief probation officer filed in said court a petition asserting it was necessary to detain said child pending an investigation to determine her 'neglect and delinquency'. On this verified petition the trial court ordered said child placed in a private home and the Probation Department was ordered to complete its investigation.
On February 6, 1951 said child was made a ward of the court. The record discloses the only evidence heard was the unverified written report of the chief probation officer. No summons was served as provided by statute on the mother or other persons having custody of said child.
Appellants' petition to set aside the judgment of the Juvenile Court alleged the failure to serve summons and that she was not dependent and neglected, and asserted facts in support thereof, and that she was being unlawfully restrained of her liberty.
Section 9-3209, Burns' 1951 Pocket Supp., provides as follows:
'If it appears that the child is in such condition or surroundings that his welfare requires that his custody be immediately assumed by the court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemons v. State, 3--673A72
...this contention of error. Transcript at 57.14 Tumbleson v. Tumbleson (1947), 117 Ind.App. 455, 73 N.E.2d 59 and Ford v. State (1952), 122 Ind.App. 315, 104 N.E.2d 406 cited by Clemons to support his contention that the juvenile judge could not consider probation office reports in making his......
-
Hewitt, In Interest of
...with dependent, delinquent, and neglected children is a jurisdictional requirement, waived by general appearance); Ford v. State, 122 Ind.App. 315, 317, 104 N.E.2d 406, 407 (neglected and delinquent children); In re Petrovich, 222 Mich. 79, 81, 192 N.W. 657 (child adjudged dependent and neg......
-
Watson v. Department of Public Welfare of Harrison County
...with counsel. He made neither plea nor motion to contest the court's jurisdiction over his person. Appellant cites Ford v. State, 1951, 122 Ind.App. 315, 104 N.E.2d 406, as authority to the effect that the juvenile court cannot acquire jurisdiction unless summons is issued and served accord......
-
Bible v. State
...juvenile court can acquire jurisdiction only if summons is issued and served in strict compliance with the statute. Ford v. State (1952), 122 Ind.App. 315, 104 N.E.2d 406; Shupe v. Bell (1957), 127 Ind.App. 292, 141 N.E.2d 351, and In re Johnson v. State (1964), 136 Ind.App. 528, 202 N.E.2d......