ILNews

Judges reverse termination of parents' rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case filled with several errors and discrepancies, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the termination of parental rights of a mother and two fathers because the Department of Child Services failed to meet the burden of proving that termination is in the best interest of the children.

Mother B.G., her husband H.H.G., and ex-husband C.L.D. appeal the termination of parental rights over the three boys – C.D., H.G. and E.G. The boys were declared children in need of services because of the mother’s and her ex-husband’s incarceration and H.H.G.’s drug use.

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.G., E.G., and C.D.; and B.G. (Mother), H.H.G. (Father), and C.L.D. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, No. 30A01-1103-JT-267, the appellate court found the record showed that the children had a bond with their parents and that the parents had made progress during the pendency of the case. The case manager and court-appointed special advocate testified the children needed permanency, but the DCS didn’t identify any potential permanent home for the children.

“Because the parents appear willing to continue cooperating with DCS and working toward reunification and because there is no indication that allowing the parents more time to do so will harm the children, we conclude that DCS failed to show that termination is in the children’s best interest,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The judges pointed out in the 39-page opinion issues with how the trial court and DCS handled the case, including no explanation as to why the children’s grandmother couldn’t take the boys because of her dogs and that family case manager Katie Huntsman’s opinion that continuation of the parent-child relationship was a threat to the children’s well being because “no progress” was made wasn’t supported by the evidence. Crone pointed out that several findings in the termination orders took a similarly overstated tone or were inaccurate.

There was also an issue as to whether DCS technically complied with the law – which the judges decided not to resolve in the opinion – regarding Huntsman’s last two reports filed before the termination hearing that included documentation that the children’s foster parents,  E.N. and C.N., were considered the adoptive family.

“DCS left the parents, the court, and the children’s CASA with the misleading impression that E.N. and C.N. were in the process of adopting the children, when in reality that placement was in jeopardy due to a licensing complaint. The record in this case also raises the disturbing possibility that DCS intentionally delayed its response to the first licensing complaint in order to leave this misleading impression intact. We note that DCS is legally required to disclose a wide array of information to the court and parties,” wrote Crone in a footnote. “… we wish to emphasize that DCS’s actions were not consistent with its purpose and that we do not condone what happened in this case.”


 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT