COA affirms ruling in 'unusual' termination case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an unusual case on appeal in which a mother's parental rights were terminated to only one of her five children during a termination hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision due to the circumstances of the case.

Lavonne Aikens appealed the termination of her parental rights to her son I.A. in the case In the Matter of Termination of Parental-Child Relationship of I.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 02A05-0811-JV-660. I.A. is the youngest of her nine children and tested positive for cocaine at birth. I.A. also has a genetic disorder and multiple physical deformities. The Allen County Department of Child Services filed a petition alleging I.A. and four of his siblings were children in need of services. The children were placed in foster care, with I.A. placed with a different family. Aikens never developed a relationship with I.A., wasn't fully aware of his medical situation, and refused to donate blood to help doctors determine his genetic disorder.

The Court of Appeals described the case as "very unusual" in its opinion today, given that the rights to only one child were terminated in a hearing regarding five children. The circumstances of the case support the termination to parental rights of I.A., given Aikens' indifference towards her son, her lack of cooperation with doctors in giving blood to test for I.A.'s genetic disorder, and failure to contact a DCS family case manager to ask about I.A.

"Although we commend Mother for being drug-free at the termination hearing (and hope that she is still drug-free today), kicking a cocaine habit for eight months is one thing. But overcoming a pattern of indifference to a child who has many medical needs is quite another. The DCS has established a reasonable probability that Mother will not change regarding I.A.," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Aikens also argued that the totality of the evidence showed she complied with services such that the court denied terminating her parental rights to her other four children and the court speculated on her ability to care for I.A. But I.A. was treated separately by the attorneys and witnesses during the termination hearing for good reason, wrote the judge. Even Aikens' own counsel said in closing statements that counsel would understand if the court just terminated her rights to I.A. given Aikens' past and chance of relapse. Based on all of the evidence, the appellate court ruled the trial court's judgment wasn't erroneous.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues