ILNews

Mistake invalidates termination of dad's rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A father's consent to voluntarily terminate his parental rights so his sister could adopt his daughter was invalidated by misrepresentations made by a family case manager for the Department of Child Services. As such, the father's petition to set aside the judgment should have been granted, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Married parents D.L. and T.W. had a daughter, but the child was determined to be a child in need of services shortly after birth. D.L, who lived in Florida because of his work as a contractor, returned to Indiana because of the CHINS proceedings and began participating in weekly supervised visits with his daughter, K.L. The Tippecanoe County DCS placed K.L. in the care of D.L.'s sister, Ann, and her husband, Glen. T.W., who had drug and psychological problems, voluntarily terminated her parental rights so Ann and Glen could adopt the baby. D.L. decided to do the same under the assumption that Ann and Glen would be able to adopt K.L. The TCDCS family case manager investigated Ann and Glen and found no red flags.

D.L.'s parental rights were terminated and Ann and Glen began the adoption process, but TCDCS removed K.L. from the home after discovering a report made by one of Glen's adult daughters that he sexually abused her when she was younger. Charges were never filed. After learning this, D.L. sought to set aside the judgment terminating his parental rights, which the trial court denied.

D.L. argued on appeal that the judgment needed to be set aside based on the family case manager's mistake or misrepresentation in her home study, that the judgment was procured by fraud, and that public policy regarding parents' rights to establish a home and raise their children weighs in favor of setting aside the judgment.

In In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of K.L.; D.L. v. Tippecanoe County Department of Child Services, No. 79A04-0908-JV-482, the appellate court agreed, finding there were no concerns about D.L.'s involvement in his daughter's life and that his decision to end his parental rights wasn't an attempt to exit his child's life, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. At the time of his decision, all of the parties thought it was in K.L.'s best interest Ann and Glen adopt her, and there were no red flags regarding past troubles in the home.

Even though D.L. was properly advised of his constitutional and legal rights at the termination hearing in which he proceeded pro se, all the advisements and questions at the hearing were clouded by the misrepresentation contained in the home report study and TCDCS' subsequent actions that served as the basis for K.L.'s placement in Ann and Glen's home and approval for her adoption. If TCDCS or the family case manager had adequately searched the DCS records, K.L. wouldn't have been placed in Ann and Glen's home and her possible adoption by the two wouldn't have been the deciding factor in D.L.'s decision to terminate his parental rights, wrote the judge.

"Under these circumstances, we find that Father's consent to voluntarily terminate his parental rights was vitiated by the misrepresentations made by the TCDCS through (the family case manager)," wrote Judge Friedlander.

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. 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