ILNews

End of parental rights not based on disability

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the involuntary termination of a couple's rights to their children, ruling the final order was valid even without the presiding magistrate judge's signature, and the fact the mother has a hearing disability was not a reason why the mother's parental rights were ended.

In R.W. Sr. (father) and D.B.W. (mother) v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services, et al., No. 49A04-0801-JV-64, married parents R.W. Sr. and D.B.W. challenged the court's decision to terminate their parental rights over their children, of which R.W. Sr. was the father of only R.W. Jr.

The two raised several issues on appeal, including whether the final order was valid because the presiding magistrate judge didn't sign it, whether the state met the statutory requirements to terminate the parental rights, and whether the state terminated D.B.W.'s parental rights because she has a hearing disability.

The children were removed from the home because of unsafe living conditions after R.W. Jr. was found roaming outside his house alone. The parents completed some court-ordered services, such as parenting classes and home-based counseling, but they didn't progress toward being allowed to have unsupervised visits. They also didn't comply with all the court-ordered services.

The children had been out of the home for more than three years when Magistrate Judge Danielle Gaughan presided over the fact-finding hearing and terminated the couple's parental rights in early 2008. Marion Superior Judge Marilyn Moores was the only one to sign the judgment.

D.B.W. argues this requires the order to be reversed because the order is technically deficient, but nothing in Indiana Code requires a magistrate judge to sign the final order, only to report his or her findings to the trial court, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

After reviewing the juvenile court's record, the Court of Appeals found that court did not base its decision to terminate D.B.W.'s parental rights based on the fact she has a significant hearing disability that challenges her ability to communicate with her children. Instead, the court considered her refusal to take the necessary steps to bridge communication - adjust her hearing aids or learn sign language, Judge Friedlander wrote.

The appellate court also found the juvenile court met all the statutory requirements necessary for termination of the couple's parental rights, and that it was in the best interest of the children that they remain outside of the home, the judge wrote.
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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT