ILNews

Mom's mental ability not reason for termination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to write an opinion barring the state from pursuing termination of parental rights of a "retarded person," as requested by the mother in a termination of parental rights case. The appellate court affirmed ending her rights to two of her children, finding the evidence designated supports her children were taken away because she failed to comply with services and find work and a home, not because she was mentally disabled.

In the case In the matter of the termination of the parent-child relationship of A.S. and M.P.; L.P. v. Tippecanoe County Division of Child Services, No. 79A05-0901-JV-54, mother L.P. challenged the trial court's termination of her parental rights to two of her four children, claiming the court ended her rights because she is mentally handicapped.

The mother sometimes left her children with a neighbor but didn't know the neighbor's name. She didn't give M.P. medication, which required the child be transferred to Riley Children's Hospital in Indianapolis. M.P. also wasn't current on immunizations and A.S. hadn't seen a doctor since his birth three weeks earlier.

The children were declared children in need of services, and L.P. was evaluated and found to have an intellectual ability falling in the range of borderline mental retardation of cognitive functioning. The petition to terminate her parental rights was granted after finding she didn't find suitable housing for her and her children, she was still unemployed, and didn't attend all of the required meetings or visitations.

Instead of challenging whether DCS met its burden of proof in terminating her rights, the mother argued she can't be subject to termination because of her low intellectual capacity even though she knows Indiana law doesn't recognize such a rule. She wanted the appellate court to write an opinion banning the state from pursuing a termination of parental rights of a "retarded person."

Mental retardation alone isn't grounds for ending parental rights, but the trial court found L.P. failed to comply with required meetings, didn't find work or housing for her children, and her lack of effort was more likely due to laziness than her mental state.

The mother also compared her situation to Indiana's prohibition on the execution of mentally retarded criminal defendants, which has nothing to do with ending parental rights, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT