ILNews

COA affirms parental termination in child’s best interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mother’s inability to adequately care for her child, leading to the girl’s failure to thrive, supports the termination of mother’s parental rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday.

In In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.W. (Minor Child), and J.W. (Mother), v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 26A01-1303-JT-113, mother J.W. argued she was denied due process during the child in need of services and termination proceedings and that the evidence doesn’t support removing her daughter C.W. Shortly after her birth, C.W. was hospitalized and diagnosed with failure to thrive; she also had apneic episodes when she would stop breathing. The Department of Child Services took custody of the girl and placed her in foster care.

C.W. was alleged to be a CHINS because J.W. cancelled doctor appointments, improperly fed her daughter, and allowed the girl to sleep on her stomach despite the risks. Over the course of 18 months, the mother didn’t significantly improve her skills with feeding her daughter or keeping her safe from household dangers. The trial court granted DCS’ petition to terminate parental rights in February.

J.W. claimed that a social worker told her that C.W. wouldn’t be returned and she should consider termination of parental rights. J.W. argued this led her to believe cooperation with services was “futile” and denied her due process. The appellate court rejected the claim because she did not show she was deprived of the chance to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

The evidence supports ending J.W.’s parental rights. The evidence shows she was unable to understand C.W.’s needs and develop the necessary skills to satisfy those needs. The mother also didn’t believe she needed intervention by service providers. The findings of fact support that termination of parental rights was in C.W.’s best interests.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT