ILNews

High court reverses termination of mom's rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices ruled in a parental termination case that the evidence presented didn't clearly show a mother's rights to her son should be terminated. One justice dissented because he believes an appellate court should defer to the lower court in assessing the facts of a case.

In the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of G.Y.; R.Y., mother; and G.Y., father v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Services, No. 49S02-0902-JV-091, the high court April 24 reversed the termination of R.Y.'s parental rights to her son, G.Y., because the majority believed the termination was clearly erroneous based on the evidence.

R.Y. had her son in April 2004 and took care of him for nearly 20 months until she was arrested and incarcerated for a drug offense that took place a year before G.Y.'s birth. She failed in getting a relative or friend to care for her son while she was in prison, so G.Y. was placed in foster care and deemed to be a child in need of services. R.Y. was ordered to participate in certain classes, find a job and housing, and other matters before she could be reunited with G.Y. after being released from prison. While incarcerated, she maintained contact with her son and had regular visits with him.

In 2007, the state filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights, which the trial court granted. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

The justices examined the evidence presented to support the termination of R.Y.'s parental rights, and the majority ruled the evidence didn't clearly and convincingly support ending her parental rights. They examined the likelihood she would re-offend, the effects on G.Y. of an additional period of instability, R.Y.'s new job and housing when she is released, G.Y.'s bond with his foster parents, and the degree of interaction with G.Y. while his mother was in prison to come to their conclusion.

The majority didn't find the likelihood she would re-offend, the amount of time it will likely take her to comply with the conditions of the court's participation decree, the fact G.Y. is closer to his foster parents right now than his mother, or G.Y.'s need for immediately permanency through adoption to be sufficiently strong reasons - alone or in conjunction with the trial court's other reasons - to determine termination was in G.Y.'s best interest, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan. The majority also noted there were some programs and assessments R.Y. couldn't complete until after she was released from prison.

In his dissent, Justice Theodore Boehm believed an appellate court should be very reluctant to conduct its own assessment of the cumulative effect of the factors above on the child and the mother's likelihood of addressing the problems that led to the dispositional order. The review of the factors turns on a judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses both to their accounts of past events and their evaluation of R.Y.'s future ability to parent and G.Y.'s ability to thrive.

"I certainly agree that there is unfairness in a CHINS dispositional order that includes directives to the mother that she is incapable of fulfilling while incarcerated," wrote the justice. "But I read the trial court's order as turning on the child's best interests and the determination that the conditions leading to the child's removal will not be remedied - not the mother's failure to comply fully with the dispositional order."

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT