ILNews

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.

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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT