ILNews

County must pay for parent's appointed attorney

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noting a paradigm shift in parental rights termination cases due to House Enrolled Act 1001, one Indiana Court of Appeals judge believed the Department of Child Services instead of the counties should be responsible for the costs of appointed counsel in these types of proceedings.

But the majority in In Re The Termination of the Parental Relationship of J.G., a minor child; S.G., mother, and J.G., father, and Indiana Department of Child Services v. S.G., No. 32A04-0902-JV-79, saw nothing in the recent revision of the relevant statutes to suggest the General Assembly intended to shift the burden of costs from counties to the DCS. It reversed a trial court order and remanded for further proceedings.

The DCS was ordered to pay - over the agency's objection - the appointed attorney fees for S.G. in a termination hearing. It argued it's not statutorily required to pay for appointed counsel to represent parents during termination proceedings.

The majority agreed after reviewing Indiana Code Section 31-40-1-2, which changed following the 2008 enactment of HEA 1001 that took effect Jan. 1, 2009. Prior to the passage of HEA 1001, the statute stated counties were responsible for paying for appointed counsel in termination proceedings; the revised statute now says DCS shall pay the cost of any child services provided by or through the department for any child or the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.

Chief Judge John Baker and Melissa May concluded court appointed counsel doesn't constitute "services" within the meaning of the statute, relying on I.C. Section 31-40-1-1.5(c), which defines the term "services."

"Those 'services' include programs and types of assistance traditionally offered and overseen by DCS, and it is easy to see the logic in the General Assembly's decision to assign the cost of those services to DCS," wrote Chief Judge Baker. "Legal services, on the other hand, are not the types of services traditionally administered by DCS for children and parents. It is not evident, therefore, that the General Assembly intended that legal services be included in the above definition of 'services.'"

The majority also found instructive the fact that other parts of the code dealing with court appointed attorneys places the burden of paying on counties. It also noted unlike the statute dictating DCS pay for costs associated with guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates, there's no explicit language in the statute to dictate that DCS pay for appointed counsel in termination hearings.

Judge Paul Barnes emphatically dissented, believing HEA 1001 shifted the costs under I.C. Section 31-40-1-2 to DCS.

"If we, as a State and a society, truly believe in the best interests of children and that the proper and appropriate care for them is a priority, we must then, in my opinion, assure that before they are taken from their families, these statutes are strictly followed and the DCS is put to its proof," he wrote.

The judge rejected DCS's argument that paying for appointed counsel for parents will "severely hinder" its goal of protecting children. He considered the appointment of counsel to be child services provided through DCS and that the agency must pay the cost of that service unless an exception applies.

"Because the DCS decides when to seek a termination, it should bear the cost of defending that decision," he wrote. "To heap the cost of these actions on the coffers of already cash-strapped counties is, in my mind, courting a legal and practical disaster."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT