ILNews

Statute must be followed in all CHINS cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed the involuntary termination of parental rights of a mother and father, but cautioned the Marion County Department of Child Services to continue to follow the statutory procedures in child in need of services cases and termination cases even if a court determines reunification efforts aren't required.

In In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.T.; D.B., father, and K.T., mother v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, No. 49A02-0803-JV-231, Kristie Thompson and Dennis Brown appealed the juvenile court's termination of their respective parental rights over their infant son, C.T. The boy had been deemed a CHINS after he tested positive for cocaine at birth.

In June 2007, the Marion County Department of Child Services requested it no longer be required to make reasonable efforts to reunify Thompson with C.T. and filed a petition to terminate both parents' rights in September 2007. Brown wasn't present at the hearing because he was incarcerated; his motion for a continuance until he was released from prison was denied.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding clear and convincing evidence there is a reasonable probability the conditions resulting in C.T.'s placement out of his parents' care wouldn't be remedied. Thompson testified she didn't use drugs despite the fact her other children had tested positive for drugs at birth, and she failed to receive treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. Brown was in and out of prison during the CHINS proceedings for C.T. and failed to communicate with his attorney or with a family case manager regarding the case.

The appellate court also found Brown wasn't denied due process when the court denied his motion for continuance, finding he was represented by counsel during the proceedings and his lack of communication with his attorney invited the alleged error of which he now complains, wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

The Court of Appeals also addressed a serious concern raised by Thompson in her appeal - MCDCS failed to perform basic case management tasks once the juvenile court determined reasonable efforts to reunify her with C.T. weren't required.

Two of Thompson's caseworkers testified they hadn't visited Thompson at her home or inquired about her employment or services she completed after being released from prison. A parent's constitutionally protected right to raise his or her children doesn't go away once a court determines a department of child services isn't required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family, wrote the judge.

The county departments of child services play an integral part in ensuring procedural safeguards are followed so parents receive a full and fair hearing before a termination may occur, and the comments and actions of Thompson's caseworkers aren't condoned by the appellate court or sanctioned by statute, wrote Judge 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT