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. 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