ILNews

COA reverses termination over rule violation

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today in its decision to reverse the termination of a mother's parental rights. The majority found the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the mother's trial counsel to withdraw her appearance under a local court rule.

In K.S. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates Inc., No. 49A02-0905-JV-384, mother K.S. claimed the trial court shouldn't have let her attorney withdraw on the date of the final hearing regarding K.S.'s rights to her daughter, A.S. The mother failed to participate in required counseling and classes and failed to appear at the termination hearings. K.S.'s attorney had sporadic contact with her and was unable to reach her by phone. K.S. had moved out of the state and her attorney was only able to reach her by e-mail. The attorney received an e-mail from K.S. asking what happened after she failed to appear at a previous hearing. In her reply, the attorney asked what K.S.'s intentions were and whether she'd be at the final hearing. The attorney also informed K.S. that she wouldn't be able to adequately represent her if K.S. didn't communicate or appear. The attorney never heard back from K.S.

The trial court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw under a Marion Circuit and Superior Court Civil Division rule. Three days later, K.S.'s parental rights were terminated.

Judges Edward Najam and Michael Barnes concluded the trial court abused its discretion in letting the attorney withdraw because she failed to provide written notice to her client or the court at least 10 days before she intended to withdraw.

The judges interpreted the local rule to mean that the good cause exception only applies to the requirement that the attorney's written letter of intent be filed with the court at least 10 days prior to trial, and the other obligations of the local rule imposed on the attorney must still be considered. DCS argued the phrase "or upon good cause shown" would allow the attorney to withdraw even without providing the written notice because she had good cause.

The attorney's e-mail to K.S. didn't constitute the written notice, nor did she file anything with the trial court. K.S.'s rights were prejudiced by the noncompliance with the local rule, wrote Judge Najam, so the majority reversed the trial court, vacated the termination order, and remanded for further proceedings.

"If Mother's attorney complies with the local rule and Mother again fails to appear in person or fails to take the steps necessary to obtain new counsel within a reasonable time, the trial court may reinstate the termination order vacated by this decision," he wrote.

Judge James Kirsch dissented, arguing K.S. put her attorney and the trial court in an untenable position. The attorney couldn't give 10 days notice of her intent to withdraw because she didn't have that intent until K.S. failed to appear at the hearing. Under these circumstances, good cause was shown for not filing the letter.

"Had the trial court denied the request to withdraw and continued with the hearing, the attorney would have sat there as a potted plant, and the result would have been exactly the same as it is now - Mother's parental rights would have been terminated," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT