ILNews

COA concerned about some details in termination case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In affirming the involuntary termination of a mother’s parental rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted some troubling details involving the case.

Mother Z.G. appealed the termination of her parental rights of her daughter, C.G., whom she left in the care of a neighbor or then-boyfriend when she went to Utah and was arrested on drug charges. During that time, C.G. was sexually abused. C.G. was placed in foster care and has remained with that family.

The mother was originally jailed in Utah but then transferred to the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Office in the Southern District of Indiana and jailed in Kentucky. Attempts to find her by Department of Child Services case managers failed, and mother wasn’t located until several months later when she learned from a friend there were termination and child in need of services proceedings regarding C.G.

Mother’s requests to appear in person at the hearings in Marion Juvenile Court were denied and she appeared via telephone. On appeal in Term. of parent-child rel. of C.G.; Z.G. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates, No. 49A04-1002-JT-75, mother claimed DCS and the trial court deprived her of due process, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence regarding the permanent disposition for C.G., and there’s insufficient evidence to support the termination.

The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the termination but took issue with several details in the case. One DCS case manager’s affidavit of diligent inquiry filed when DCS sought to serve notice upon Z.G. by publication contained an inaccuracy. It said that the case manager had asked “family acquaintances regarding the parent’s whereabouts,” but the manager testified he used a form to generate the affidavit and that statement couldn’t be removed. He didn’t contact any family acquaintances. Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote that his attitude toward executing a sworn affidavit is “troubling,” but the inaccuracy didn’t increase the error in termination proceedings.

The appellate panel was also concerned by the fact that the DCS case manager, who first received a letter from the mother in November 2008, didn’t tell her a CHINS case was pending in his response letter in December 2008. The mother didn’t learn of the proceeding until she received an advisement of rights form and copy of the CHINS petition in a February 2009 letter, a little less than a month before DCS filed its petition for termination.

“DCS’s delay in sending Mother a copy of the CHINS petition and an advisement of rights effectively precluded Mother from participating in the CHINS case in its later stages and cannot be condoned. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that DCS’s dilatory behavior substantially increased the risk of error in the termination proceedings,” Judge Vaidik wrote.

Finally, the appellate judges were troubled by the Marion Superior Court’s policy that juvenile prisoners cannot be within sight or hearing of adult prisoners, and the Juvenile Division lacks the facilities to separately house adult and juvenile offenders at the Juvenile Center. There is a blanket policy preventing adult inmates from participating in person in proceedings at the center, thus mother had to participate by telephone.

“As the evidence at the hearing shows, there are other Marion County courts with the capacity to hold adult prisoners, and those could be used in termination proceedings when necessary,” she wrote. “We can foresee circumstances under which an incarcerated parent’s in-person participation in a termination proceeding would be necessary, and the Marion Superior Court’s policy could deprive parents of their right to due process in those circumstances.”

Nonetheless, the judges found Z.G.’s due process rights weren’t significantly compromised by her telephonic participation because she was represented by counsel, she testified during the hearing, and was able to authenticate exhibits her counsel sent her.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT