ILNews

Lawyers can't appeal termination without parent's authorization

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held Tuesday that although parents have a statutory right to appellate counsel to appeal an order ending their parental rights, a parent’s trial lawyer cannot pursue an appeal without the parent’s authorization.

The justices unanimously affirmed the denial by the juvenile court in appointing appellate counsel to represent mother M.L. in an appeal of the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship order. M.L.’s son, I.B., was born with drugs in his system and later found to be a child in need of services. M.L.’s mother served as the primary caregiver of I.B. M.L. moved back in with her mother, but often drank and did not consistently participate in required drug screenings and services in order to get her son back.

An attorney was appointed to represent M.L. at a termination hearing, but the attorney and the state couldn’t reach the mother. The juvenile court terminated her parental rights and also denied her court-appointed attorney’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel. The attorney said he did not wish to do the appeal and that he filed notice because he was obligated under the terms of his contract. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS, No. 03S05-1004-JV-218, the justices found that Indiana Code provides parents the right to representation by counsel in termination proceedings, including appeals. They also held that an attorney should not file an appeal when the attorney can’t get in touch with his client and learn whether she wants to appeal.

Justice Frank Sullivan cited several Rules of Professional Conduct that provide general guidance on this issue, including Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.4. He also cited several cases from other jurisdictions that have considered this issue in family law matters.  

“An appeal of a decision to terminate parental rights, by its very nature, causes delay and prolongs the process of uncertainty for a child. To sanction an appeal as a matter of course would not further the objective of bringing permanency to the child through the prompt resolution of termination proceedings. As such, the policy objective of permanency is consonant with the lawyer’s ethical obligations,” he wrote.

If an attorney’s client is not present at the termination of parental rights hearing, there when the termination order is issued, or hasn’t contacted her counsel, then the trial lawyer has an obligation to contact the client and let her know of the result of the termination proceeding. If the attorney can’t locate the client by using due diligence before the time to file the notice of appeal is due, then the lawyer shouldn’t file the appeal.

“Parents have a statutory right to appellate counsel to appeal an order terminating their parental rights. This right to appeal can be waived,” he wrote. “And it is improper for a parent’s trial lawyer, after the lawyer has exercised due diligence to determine the parent’s wishes with respect to an appeal, to pursue an appeal without the parent’s authorization.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT