ILNews

COA rules trial court should have allowed DCS to withdraw adoption consent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Child Services’ failure to investigate a child’s aunt as a possible adoptive parent – and a trial court’s refusal to allow DCS to withdraw consent for foster parents to adopt after acknowledging its failure – prompted the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse a trial court order granting the foster parents’ petition to adopt.

The court on Tuesday ruled that Jackson Circuit judge William E. Vance erred in not allowing DCS to withdraw its consent for the foster parents to adopt in In the Matter of the Adoption of N.W.R.; M.R. v. R.B. and R.B., and Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 36A01-1109-AD-407. The appellate panel ordered the trial court to reconsider evidence after DCS completes an investigation of the child’s aunt, M.R., as a potential adoptive parent.

N.W.R., a 2-year-old boy, was determined to be a child in need of services less than three weeks after his birth. He was placed with foster parents R.B. and R.B., unbeknownst to the child’s aunt, M.R., with whom N.W.R.’s three siblings, ages 3, 4 and 5, had been placed.

M.R. requested the child be placed with her, court records show, but DCS told her that her East Chicago home was too far away and conflicted with the child’s permanency plan goal of reunification with biological parents.

As the aunt persisted, she was granted visitation rights that increased over time. But before N.W.R’s first birthday, the biological parents’ rights were terminated, and the court ultimately granted the foster parents’ adoption petition, in the course of which it denied DCS’s motion to withdraw its consent.

The appellate panel instructed the trial court to “review the evidence de novo to determine which adoptive placement is in the best interests of the child, giving due consideration to the evidence showing that these siblings should be placed together. The court shall not consider the passage of time or maintenance of the status quo dispositive.”

The unanimous opinion written by Judge Edward Najam Jr. said that when DCS informed the court of its desire to withdraw consent because it had not carried out its obligations to determine placement in the child’s best interest, the court had an obligation to allow the withdrawal of consent.

“DCS had the integrity to declare on its own initiative that it had failed to meet its statutory duty. And this notice by DCS that its investigation was incomplete went directly to the heart of the adoption because it is the court’s responsibility to determine the best interests of the child based upon a full investigation of credible placement alternatives,” Najam wrote. “The court’s ruling against DCS’ motion to withdraw its consent affected the substantial rights of the parties and was not harmless.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT