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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT