ILNews

Court of Appeals dismisses termination-order appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because the parents of six children who were removed from their home did not timely initiate the appeal of termination of their parental rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal.

Father F.L. and mother C.B. appealed the trial court orders terminating their parental rights. The five youngest children were placed in foster care because of domestic violence and drug use; the oldest child was already out of the home in a residential placement due to a delinquency case. All the children were adjudicated as children in need of services.

On Aug. 20, 2010, the trial court terminated their parental rights to the five youngest children; on Aug. 23, the court terminated their parental rights to the oldest child. On Aug. 30, C.B. filed a notice of intent to appeal and request for appointment of counsel with the trial court; the father filed an identical notice the next day. The same appellate counsel was appointed to represent the parents. On Sept. 23, their appellate attorney filed a notice of appeal, requesting assembly of the clerk’s record and preparation of the transcript.

The parents filed a motion for permission to file belated notice of appeal with the trial court on Jan. 18, 2011. The trial court entered an order finding it had no authority to grant such relief in a civil matter, and filed with the COA a Notice to Court of Appeals of Untimely Notice of Appeal.

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.L., et al.; F.L. and C.B. v. I.D.C.S., No. 20A05-1009-JT-635, the appellate court found the parents’ appeal to be untimely. The judges rejected the parents’ argument that their notice of intent to appeal is “functionally equivalent” to the required notice of appeal. The notices of intent filed in August didn’t fulfill the requirements of a notice of appeal as described in Indiana Appellate Rule 9, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb.

The parents also claimed that the notice of appeal is similar to the Indiana Tort Claims Act’s notice of tort claim requirements. But compliance with the notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act is a procedural precedent; the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the judge wrote.

“Moreover, even if we were inclined to agree that the two should be treated similarly, the Notices of Intent to Appeal filed by Parents in this case do not fulfill the purpose of the notice of appeal requirement – to serve as a mechanism to alert the trial court and the parties of the initiation of an appeal and to trigger action by the trial court clerk and court reporter, setting in motion the filing deadlines imposed by the Appellate Rules,” she wrote.

The judges then reviewed the record because of the constitutional dimensions of the case and found no clear error in the trial court’s decision.

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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT