ILNews

Court reverses because of DCS notification policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the parental right termination decision made by a trial court, ruling that both the court and Indiana Department of Child Services in Porter County denied a biological father his due process by not notifying him of CHINS proceedings that ultimately led to his paternal rights being taken away.

An appellate ruling came today in Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.S.O.; S.O. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 64A05-1005-JT-304, which involved a child born in May 2008 and two biological parents who weren’t married but had determined paternity at an Oklahoma hospital following the birth of J.O.

The father was arrested that year and extradited to Indiana on an outstanding warrant, and he has not had contact with J.O since then. In July 2008, the mother was arrested on cocaine and drug paraphernalia charges and the child was taken into protective custody, starting this CHINS process. But the Porter County DCS officials didn’t notify the father of any of those proceedings despite having his vital information and knowing about the out-of-state paternity affidavit, stating an agency policy that presumes paternity has not been established if a child is born out of wedlock in another state and a court order indicating otherwise hasn’t been issued.

Once the CHINS hearing was finished, the DCS did notify the father that the parental termination hearing was taking place and he got involved at that point and stayed a part of the case. Despite the father’s objections, in April 2010 the trial court ruled against him and involuntarily terminated his rights to the child, so he sued.

The three appellate judges all agreed that the state agency and Porter County trial court had “blatantly ignored” state statute and due process. They looked at Indiana Code 31-34-3-4 requiring notice to each of the child’s parents, and IC 31-34-3-4(2) that requires the DCS to make a good faith effort to contact the child’s parents within six hours after the child has been taken into custody.

“Notwithstanding our holding today, we pause to clarify that we are not commenting upon the sufficiency of the evidence in this case or on the extent to which a county office of the Indiana Department of Child Services must provide services to parents in a CHINS case,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote, being joined by Judge L. Mark Bailey. “Nor should this opinion be construed as adding an additional element to those already required by Indiana’s termination statute. Rather, we simply cannot ignore PCDCS’s and the trial court’s failure to follow numerous and substantial statutory mandates in this matter."

Judge James Kirsch agreed that the father was denied due process during CHINS proceedings, but he wrote in his dissent that this did not deprive him of procedural due process with respect to the termination of his parental rights. He cited how the father was given notice on the termination hearing, and the evidence of his past history clearly showed the termination rights should be terminated – as the trial court had done. The majority’s decision will result in enormous disruption to the child’s life, he 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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT