Tuesday’s batch of Court of Appeals opinions contained two scenarios in which a trial court’s oral ruling failed to align with its subsequent written order. While one of the “inconsistent” orders was remanded, the other order was affirmed. Let’s talk about why.
The order that was affirmed, In re O.D.S., involved a Rule 3.1 appeal. The trial court stated on the record that DSS had proven abuse and neglect but made no ruling as to dependency. … Continue Reading