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.”














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.