COA affirms ruling in 'unusual' termination case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an unusual case on appeal in which a mother's parental rights were terminated to only one of her five children during a termination hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision due to the circumstances of the case.

Lavonne Aikens appealed the termination of her parental rights to her son I.A. in the case In the Matter of Termination of Parental-Child Relationship of I.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 02A05-0811-JV-660. I.A. is the youngest of her nine children and tested positive for cocaine at birth. I.A. also has a genetic disorder and multiple physical deformities. The Allen County Department of Child Services filed a petition alleging I.A. and four of his siblings were children in need of services. The children were placed in foster care, with I.A. placed with a different family. Aikens never developed a relationship with I.A., wasn't fully aware of his medical situation, and refused to donate blood to help doctors determine his genetic disorder.

The Court of Appeals described the case as "very unusual" in its opinion today, given that the rights to only one child were terminated in a hearing regarding five children. The circumstances of the case support the termination to parental rights of I.A., given Aikens' indifference towards her son, her lack of cooperation with doctors in giving blood to test for I.A.'s genetic disorder, and failure to contact a DCS family case manager to ask about I.A.

"Although we commend Mother for being drug-free at the termination hearing (and hope that she is still drug-free today), kicking a cocaine habit for eight months is one thing. But overcoming a pattern of indifference to a child who has many medical needs is quite another. The DCS has established a reasonable probability that Mother will not change regarding I.A.," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Aikens also argued that the totality of the evidence showed she complied with services such that the court denied terminating her parental rights to her other four children and the court speculated on her ability to care for I.A. But I.A. was treated separately by the attorneys and witnesses during the termination hearing for good reason, wrote the judge. Even Aikens' own counsel said in closing statements that counsel would understand if the court just terminated her rights to I.A. given Aikens' past and chance of relapse. Based on all of the evidence, the appellate court ruled the trial court's judgment wasn't erroneous.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?