ILNews

Attempted murderer may adopt under statute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Under Indiana statute for adoption, attempted murder isn't listed as a conviction that would prohibit a court from granting the adoption, but aggravated battery is. Because a man was ultimately only convicted and sentenced for his attempted murder charge and the trial court didn't enter a conviction against him for aggravated battery, his adoption of his nephew should be allowed to proceed, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In the case In Re the Matter of the adoption of J.L.S., a minor child,  No. 45A03-0811-CV-572, J.L.S.'s maternal uncle, W.S., filed a petition to adopt his nephew in Lake County. His niece made arrangements for her uncle and his wife to adopt her baby and terminated her and the baby's father's parental rights.

The trial court learned of the uncle's 1996 conviction of attempted murder in Illinois and allowed the proceedings to continue. A home study recommended the court allow W.S. to adopt his nephew, saying W.S. appeared to better his life after leaving prison, is a family man now and is bonded with the child.

The referee in Lake County requested W.S.'s records from Illinois because she wanted to see what he was charged with in case a conviction precluded him from adopting in Indiana. The referee also appointed a guardian ad litem for the child, who believed the child should be placed with his uncle and, if the statute prohibited W.S. from adopting, his due process rights would be violated.

The Illinois records showed a jury convicted W.S. of attempted murder and aggravated battery, but the trial court only entered a conviction and sentence on attempted murder. The referee denied the adoption based on the jury conviction of the aggravated battery, since someone convicted of that is prohibited from adopting in Indiana under Indiana Code Section 31-19-11-1(c). She then encouraged the uncle to appeal in the hopes the Court of Appeals would agree with the GAL and allow the adoption to go forward.

The appellate court did allow the adoption to proceed and reversed the referee's decision. I.C. Section 31-19-11-1(c) makes clear that if a petitioner has been convicted of one of the felonies listed, the court is prohibited from granting the adoption. The Court of Appeals examined W.S.'s criminal history and because the records show there were no judgments of conviction entered against the uncle except for attempted murder and he was only sentenced for that charge, he was only "convicted" of attempted murder, despite the jury convicting him of aggravated battery.

"Although Indiana Code § 31-19-11-1(c) lists several felonies that prohibit a court from granting an adoption, attempted murder is not one of them," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. "While this appears to be an oversight by our legislature in light of the fact that felony battery and aggravated battery are listed, it is not the role of the judiciary to rewrite a statute."

The appellate court reversed and remanded to determine whether adoption is still in the best interests of the child and whether the prospective parents are of sufficient ability to raise him pursuant to I.C. Section 31-19-11-1(a)(1) and (2).

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The voices of the prophets are more on blogs than subway walls these days, Dawn. Here is the voice of one calling out in the wilderness ... against a corrupted judiciary ... that remains corrupt a decade and a half later ... due to, so sadly, the acquiescence of good judges unwilling to shake the forest ... for fear that is not faith .. http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/09/prof-alan-dershowitz-on-indiana.html

  2. So I purchased a vehicle cash from the lot on West Washington in Feb 2017. Since then I found it the vehicle had been declared a total loss and had sat in a salvage yard due to fire. My title does not show any of that. I also have had to put thousands of dollars into repairs because it was not a solid vehicle like they stated. I need to find out how to contact the lawyers on this lawsuit.

  3. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  4. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  5. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

ADVERTISEMENT