ILNews

Mother’s appeal of termination of parental rights dismissed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed a mother’s appeal from the order terminating her parental rights to her twins, ruling she forfeited her right to appeal because she failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Mother B.J.G. has a history of domestic violence, drug abuse, mental illness and periods of incarceration. Mother does not have custody of any of her seven children. She was incarcerated when she gave birth to twins, J.G. and C.G. The Department of Child Services initiated a child in need of services petition regarding the twins after mother tested positive for methamphetamine while pregnant.

The children were removed from her care and mother failed to complete any of the services and counseling needed to regain custody. She also repeatedly failed drug testing.

The trial court issued the order March 25, 2013, terminating her parental rights to the twins. She filed a notice of intent to appeal April 3 and asked for appointment of outside counsel for the appeal. The trial court appointed appellate counsel April 25 and she filed her notice of appeal May 3, past the 30-day time limit for filing appeals of final judgments.

The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal, noting that it is untimely. The judges rejected her claim that the court should ignore the 30-day time limit in Appellate Rule 9(A) because appellate counsel was not appointed until the 30-day time limit had expired, citing In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.L., 952 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

“Mother is not eligible to file a belated appeal under P.C.R. 2, and her Notice of Appeal was not timely filed; therefore, we conclude that she has forfeited her right to appeal the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote in In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.G. and C.G. (Minor Children) and B.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 84A05-1305-JT-219.

The judges also found sufficient evidence supports the decision to terminate her parental rights.
 

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT