ILNews

COA sets standard in parental rights cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In addressing a statutory inconsistency on parental rights terminations, the Indiana Court of Appeals has held that trial judges must offer findings of fact in those types of cases just as they're required to by law for children in need of services cases and grandparent visitation matters.

The three-judge appellate panel issued that holding today in a unanimous decision on In The Matter of the Termination of Parental-Child Relationship of A.K., Minor Child., and A.S. Mother and O.K., Father, v. Ind. Dep't of Child Services, St. Joseph County, No. 71A05-0905-JV-261, which comes out of the courtroom of St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth.

The case involves the biological parents of A.K., who was born in 2004 and declared a CHINS by the time she was 3 years old. Facts of the case show that both parents had various legal, mental, and other problems leading up to the court's and DCS involvement. In April 2009, Judge Nemeth issued an order terminating both parents' rights but didn't make any findings of fact.

On appeal, the case was fully briefed before the Indiana Court of Appeals in early October and within a month the appellate court ordered Judge Nemeth to enter a revised final order containing complete findings of fact in support of his decision. After an extension, Judge Nemeth in January filed a motion to vacate the appellate court's order from late last year. Specifically, he claimed the higher court's order requiring complete findings of fact "is not authorized by the Indiana Rules of Procedure and usurps the power of the Supreme Court of Indiana to control practice and procedure in all the Courts of Indiana."

The appellate court denied Judge Nemeth's order in January and threatened to find him in contempt if he didn't comply by February. Judge Nemeth asked the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction, but the justices dismissed that transfer motion in February. Judge Nemeth entered his findings that same week.

On the merits, the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed Judge Nemeth's judgment in today's ruling, finding that clear and convincing evidence supports his decision terminating the parents' rights. But the panel first tackled the procedural hurdles that Judge Nemeth had raised about statutory requirements for findings of fact, issuing a holding that will impact all cases of this kind.

"The probate court was not statutorily required to enter findings of fact in issuing its judgment involuntarily terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to A.K.," Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the panel, citing caselaw from Parks v. Delaware County Dep't of Child Servs., 862 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). "But where, as here, the rights invoked are of constitutional magnitude, our review cannot begin and end with the mere fact that applicable statutes do not require a trial court to support its conclusions with any identifiable rationale."

Judge Mathias concurred with the earlier panel in Parks that found a trial court's termination order should include those findings and conclusions as law because of the serious and permanent nature of these parental rights proceedings.

"We believe that a judgment terminating the relationship between a parent and child is impossible to review on appeal if it is nothing more than a mere recitation of the conclusions the governing statute requires the trial court to reach. Indiana's parents and children deserve more, and the basis notions of due process inherent in our system of justice demand more," the court wrote, citing the CHINS and grandparent visitation statutes that require these findings.

"We hold today that our trial courts must treat them accordingly, with the constitutional gravity they clearly have, and enter findings of fact that support the entry of the conclusions called for by Indiana statute and the common law," the court wrote.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT