ILNews

Court weighs cost of transportation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In LaPorte County, Juvenile Magistrate Nancy Gettinger tries to recognize and thank the police who transport inmates to her courtroom for parental rights termination hearings.

She knows the difficulty of making sure incarcerated parents are able to appear in order to get the best representation or participate in the proceedings.

teleconference-15col.jpg The Indiana Department of Correction has a videoconferencing room in its facilities where inmates can attend civil or criminal proceedings – including parental rights termination hearings and CHINS proceedings. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“If I can get them here in person, I try my best to do that, and I typically don’t have any issue with getting that incarcerated parent here,” she said. “As a judicial officer, I want to make sure I’m affording that person every opportunity to be heard because this is heavy-duty stuff, these parental rights. I’m pretty lucky in LaPorte County, but many others aren’t and have more trouble in transporting them to court.”

willis-maryjan-bw-mug.jpg Willis

On Oct. 11, the Indiana Supreme Court issued guidance to state trial courts in determining whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to attend a termination of parental rights hearing. The decision was welcomed by judges and attorneys who say the requirements up to now have been unclear.

Reaction on how much practical effect this ruling will have are mixed, but most say they see it as significant because it affirms some of the practices already used and gives them clear direction on what must be included in written findings in these cases. Judges and attorneys handling these cases also hope this opinion will send a message to the Department of Child Services that it needs to improve its investigation and notification policies in parental rights cases which are becoming more frequent statewide and involve more parents who are behind bars.

The holding came in a Marion County case, In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.G., Minor Child and Her Mother, Z.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc., No. 49S04-1101-JT-46, with Justice Steven David writing the unanimous opinion. While addressing the due process issues of the case, the justices summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals decision from August 2010 that found in favor of Marion County DCS and Child Advocates.

The mother, Z.G., appealed the termination of parental rights of daughter C.G. C.G. was born in 2000 and left in the care of a neighbor or then-boyfriend when Z.G. went to Utah, where she was arrested on drug charges. During that time, C.G. was sexually abused and eventually placed in foster care with a family that has since adopted her. Z.G. was put in federal custody and incarcerated in Kentucky.

Two DCS family case managers attempted to find Z.G. and notify her of the Child in Need of Services and parental termination proceedings. She was located in prison several months later when she learned from a friend about the proceedings regarding her daughter.

carmichael-vicki-mug.jpg Carmichael

Z.G.’s requests to appear in person at the hearings in Marion Juvenile Court were denied and she appeared via teleconferencing. She claimed DCS and the trial court deprived her of due process, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence regarding the permanent disposition for C.G., and that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination. The Court of Appeals disagreed that any due process violation occurred, as does the state Supreme Court.

Still, David – a former juvenile judge in Boone County – found aspects about how the DCS handled the case in regard to inadequately notifying the mother about CHINS and parental rights termination proceedings questionable. He also expressed concern over how case managers filled out forms and that they failed to contact family members. Pointing to these examples, David described the DCS actions as extremely troubling, disturbing and inappropriate.

“In this case, several errors were made by DCS which should not have been made,” he wrote. “However, none of the errors rose to the level of violating Mother’s due process rights or warranting reversal.”

transportationLooking at the mother’s inability to attend the hearing, David examined an issue on which the court hasn’t previously offered guidance to state trial judges. The Court of Appeals addressed the issue for the first time in 2002 and found that parents weren’t denied due process by not being transported to their termination hearings. It also held alternative procedures such as speaker phone or video conferencing could be used.

The justices noted that Z.G. in this case participated in both days of the termination hearing telephonically with Spanish interpreters in the courtroom. That presents risks, they said, because of the “delicate” nature of the proceeding.

Examining the methods used in various states, the Indiana justices focused on a practice used in West Virginia that was outlined more than a decade ago in State of West Virginia ex rel. Jaenette H. v. Pancake, 529 S.E.2d 865 (W. Va. 2000).

Specifically, it says the trial judge should balance 11 factors that range from the impact of delaying a case for parental attendance, the effect of the parent’s presence and personal participation, any potential safety or security risk and the impact on the child’s best interest.

In the present case, the mother wasn’t allowed to attend the proceedings and participated by teleconferencing. Marion County has had a policy since 2006 prohibiting adults from being sent to juvenile courts, even though some continued to be able to attend throughout 2009.

“A blanket order prohibiting transporting a prisoner to a termination hearing is fraught with danger,” David wrote. “If the trial courts were allowed to hide behind such a blanket order, on review our appellate courts would be left with little to no information, forcing them to surmise why the trial court issued the order.”

In many Indiana counties, local judges and attorneys say their jurisdictions don’t have blanket transportation policies and discretion is used based on the situation at the time.

Evansville public defender Erin Berger said that she sees many clients who are incarcerated and that Vanderburgh Superior Judge Brett Niemeier already uses many of these same factors in considering whether transportation is warranted. Clients in federal custody typically do not appear, because the logistics outweigh the benefits, and she said the judge tries to get parents into court as often as possible.

Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis believes this ruling will be helpful in weighing these due process considerations because it specifically allows for counties to take into account factors such as cost of transporting a parent. Clark Superior Judge Vicki Carmichael said this Supreme Court ruling won’t change how she handles cases involving parents incarcerated inside Indiana, but it will impact those cases where parents are incarcerated out of state. Since Clark County borders Kentucky, the judge said many parents are held in Kentucky and she will now balance the factors the justices adopted.

gettinger-nancy-mug.jpg Gettinger

“I certainly believe the better practice is to have parents present at such hearings as termination of parental rights does impact their fundamental interests in the care and custody of their children,” she said.

In northern Indiana, Gettinger said it is often easier to transport incarcerated parents because three state correctional facilities are located nearby. If transportation is not possible, she finds the Department of Correction video conferencing capabilities adequate, and she’s also allowed incarcerated parents to participate in the hearing by phone.

“That’s not my preference to do a video or teleconference,” Gettinger said, noting that one recent parent was set up in a prison cafeteria where the background noise made it difficult for everyone to communicate. “It’s really case by case and it does make a difference when someone’s there, but that’s not always possible.”

Though she doesn’t see this ruling having much impact on her decision-making process as it occurs now, Gettinger said it will cause her to make an official record with written findings outlying each of the factors the justices referenced. She hopes that the Supreme Court’s scolding of the DCS about its practices in these cases might help motivate the state to more actively work toward getting people into court.

“As a practical matter, not much will change. But we have guidance on what we can consider and what needs to be in our findings,” she said. “I enjoyed in the opinion how Justice David used his own experiences about DCS practices that we’ve felt are often too shabby. I’ve lectured them from time to time that these people do have rights, and it’s nice to have someone in our corner who’s aware of how this plays out in our courtrooms.”•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT