COA: Parental rights should be ended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's decision to continue the parental rights of two incarcerated parents, finding it to be in the child's best interest to sever the rights because the parents possibly won't be released from prison for two more years.

In In Re: The termination of the parent-child relationship of J.M.; Daniel G. Pappas, guardian ad litem v. A.S., mother, A.M., alleged father, and the Allen County Department of Child Services, No. 02A05-0807-JV-416, Daniel Pappas, as guardian ad litem for J.M., appealed the trial court's denial of the Allen County Office of Family and Children's petition to terminate A.S. and A.M.'s parental rights. Both had been incarcerated on drug charges since 2004, when J.M. was nearly 4 years old. J.M. had bounced around between family members and foster care and has remained in foster care since January 2006.

The trial court denied the petition to terminate parental rights, citing Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), in which a father's parental rights weren't terminated because he would be getting out of prison in six weeks, had secured housing and a job, and the children would continue to live with their grandparents until he was able to care for them. The trial court in the instant case found the J.M.'s parents' release dates to be "soon" and that they had completed many required services under the dispositional decree while incarcerated.

But Rowlett is different from the instant case, wrote Judge Carr Darden. J.M.'s mother's earliest release date is April 2009 if she completes college courses; his father's current release date is January 2010. Neither has shown they have secured employment or housing once they are released, wrote the judge. As a result of the trial court's ruling, J.M. would have to remain in foster care for two more years, or possibly longer until his parents could secure a job and home.

The Allen County Office of Family and Children presented clear and convincing evidence A.S. and A.M. are unable to provide a safe and stable environment for J.M. and that it is in his best interest the parental rights are terminated, wrote Judge Darden. J.M. hasn't seen his parents since 2005 and only communicates with his mother through an occasional letter or phone call.

The appellate court remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order terminating A.S. and A.M.'s parental rights.


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.