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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT