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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT