No partial parental right termination allowed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana law doesn't allow for partial termination of parental rights, the state's Court of Appeals has ruled in a case of first impression.

But holding that, the appellate court has upheld a Howard County judge's two-fold decision to first approve a voluntary parental-right termination agreement reserving a right for post-adoptive visitation privileges, and subsequently denying to set aside a later decision to terminate that visitation. The appellate court found that though the trial court didn't abuse its descretion in this case, the panel expressed serious concerns with what happened and noted it could present problems in the future.

"Trial courts are cautioned to refrain from approving post-termination agreements such as these in the future as they are contrary to Indiana law and are likely, under a different set of circumstances, to provide false hope to parents facing termination of their parental rights," Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the unanimous panel, reluctantly affirming the ruling from Howard Circuit Judge Lynn Murray.

In the parental termination matter involving minors M.B. and S.B., the court issued its 25-page decision today in Tiffany Black v. Howard County Department of Child Services, No. 34A02-0805-JV-437.

The case stems from a county child services petition in March 2007 for involuntary termination parental rights for Black. The natural father is deceased. Prior to a fact-finding hearing in June 2007, the mother filed a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights for each child. But she attached addendums that stipulated the terminations hinged on the court granting post-adoption privileges, such as continued contact between her and the children.

The trial court advised Black that the termination couldn't be set aside unless it was fraudulent, or that it was under duress or she wasn't competent at the time, but it accepted the submitted agreements and later that day ordered the voluntary parental rights termination. She was permitted to continue visiting with both children twice a month, until the children were placed with adoptive parents who didn't know about the visitation agreement. The child services agency later recommended visitation be terminated and the court agreed, noting it wasn't in the children's best interest. Earlier this year, the trial court denied the mother's motion to set aside the voluntary termination order in that the judge didn't abide by the terms or that it was fraudulently obtained.

In holding that partial parental right terminations don't exist in Indiana, the appellate court made it clear it finds the mother's agreement contrary to state statute.

"Either the parent-child relationship survives, or it does not," the court wrote. "Given the plain and unambiguous language of Indiana Code Section 31-35-6-4(a)(1), coupled with Indiana's strong public policy to protect the emotional well-being of children whose parents have been either unable or unwilling to provide for their basic needs over a prolonged period of time, we conclude that the Mother's addendums to the voluntary consent forms are void ab initio and thus unenforceable as a matter of law."

Her agreement was an attempt to sidestep state law and "bootstrap" otherwise impermissible conditions into a termination order, Judge Brown wrote. Allowing that to happen would tie a trial court's hands and those of any child services agency, and would discourage adoption.

"Few prospective parents would endeavor to embark on the life-changing journey of adoption knowing they could find themselves the ready prey of possible unscrupulous parents who were contractually entitled to demand post-adoption visitation and other parental privileges following a termination of the parent-child relationship," she wrote.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.