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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT