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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT