ILNews

Lawyers can't appeal termination without parent's authorization

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held Tuesday that although parents have a statutory right to appellate counsel to appeal an order ending their parental rights, a parent’s trial lawyer cannot pursue an appeal without the parent’s authorization.

The justices unanimously affirmed the denial by the juvenile court in appointing appellate counsel to represent mother M.L. in an appeal of the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship order. M.L.’s son, I.B., was born with drugs in his system and later found to be a child in need of services. M.L.’s mother served as the primary caregiver of I.B. M.L. moved back in with her mother, but often drank and did not consistently participate in required drug screenings and services in order to get her son back.

An attorney was appointed to represent M.L. at a termination hearing, but the attorney and the state couldn’t reach the mother. The juvenile court terminated her parental rights and also denied her court-appointed attorney’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel. The attorney said he did not wish to do the appeal and that he filed notice because he was obligated under the terms of his contract. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS, No. 03S05-1004-JV-218, the justices found that Indiana Code provides parents the right to representation by counsel in termination proceedings, including appeals. They also held that an attorney should not file an appeal when the attorney can’t get in touch with his client and learn whether she wants to appeal.

Justice Frank Sullivan cited several Rules of Professional Conduct that provide general guidance on this issue, including Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.4. He also cited several cases from other jurisdictions that have considered this issue in family law matters.  

“An appeal of a decision to terminate parental rights, by its very nature, causes delay and prolongs the process of uncertainty for a child. To sanction an appeal as a matter of course would not further the objective of bringing permanency to the child through the prompt resolution of termination proceedings. As such, the policy objective of permanency is consonant with the lawyer’s ethical obligations,” he wrote.

If an attorney’s client is not present at the termination of parental rights hearing, there when the termination order is issued, or hasn’t contacted her counsel, then the trial lawyer has an obligation to contact the client and let her know of the result of the termination proceeding. If the attorney can’t locate the client by using due diligence before the time to file the notice of appeal is due, then the lawyer shouldn’t file the appeal.

“Parents have a statutory right to appellate counsel to appeal an order terminating their parental rights. This right to appeal can be waived,” he wrote. “And it is improper for a parent’s trial lawyer, after the lawyer has exercised due diligence to determine the parent’s wishes with respect to an appeal, to pursue an appeal without the parent’s authorization.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT