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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT