ILNews

Appeals court affirms terminating mother’s parental rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mother who was close to reunification with her three children, deemed children in need of services, until she battered her fiancé in front of them had the termination of her parental rights affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Mother S.C. has three children with V.C., one of whom was born while S.C. was incarcerated. Her children had been determined to be CHINS after she was arrested for theft and operating a vehicle while intoxicated when she was pregnant with the youngest child. The children were placed in foster care after she was arrested again and the children’s father was incarcerated.

She was on her way to reunification with the children when she got intoxicated and battered her fiancé in front of the children because he wouldn’t give her more than the prescribed amount of her prescription medication. The Department of Child Services changed the plan from reunification to termination of parental rights after her arrest from this incident. The three children were placed with their paternal grandmother.

In February 2012, DCS filed petitions to involuntary terminate her parental rights, which the court granted.

In In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.C., Et.C. & El.C.; S.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 29A02-1210-JT-833, the COA ruled that DCS presented sufficient evidence that the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal were not likely to be remedied, and the findings support the court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interest of the children. Mother’s repeated drug use and criminal activity resulted in the children’s removal more than once. The evidence also supported finding of an adequate plan for the children’s future care. They were all in pre-adoptive placement with their grandmother, who had cared for them for almost a year when the termination proceedings ended.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT