ILNews

Visitation-adoption agreement not allowed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State law doesn't allow for post-adoption visitation that's contingent upon a voluntary termination of parental rights, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

In In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.B. And S.B. (Children);T.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 34S02-0904-JV-147, the justices agreed mother's parental rights remain terminated; however, they reversed termination of her post-adoption visitation rights at a review hearing the mother wasn't notified of. The court remanded to the trial court with instructions that should the state continue to seek termination of mother's visitation rights, the court consider the request at a hearing that meets state requirements. Justice Theodore Boehm issued his separate opinion that concurred with the result.

The case involves a mother's relationships to two children born respectively in March 2000 and June 2002, and were later removed from the mom's custody in August 2002 after she was arrested and jailed on drug charges. No other suitable family members could care for the children. After about a year-and-a-half following the mother's release in October 2005, the state petitioned that her parental rights be terminated involuntarily because she hadn't found adequate housing or employment, or complied with the court orders to get drug treatment.

Though the mother initially disputed the allegations, she later agreed to voluntarily give up her parental rights. Her attorney drew up a form that stipulated the mother consented to giving up her parental rights "subject to the Court granting post-adoption privileges and the adoptive parents consenting to post-adoption contact" between the mother and the children.

The court allowed it and adoption followed, and the mother visited with the children for about two hours every two weeks at first. A three-month CHINS periodic review hearing was conducted but the mother and her attorney weren't notified; the state requested the mother's visitation rights be terminated based on their interference with the children's bonding with the adoptive family. The court terminated those rights, and then told the mother about this for the first time during her regularly scheduled visitation two days later that it would be her "goodbye visit," according to the court records.

After that, the mother moved to set aside the voluntary termination of her parental rights, which the trial court denied. She appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial last year.

In deciding the issue on transfer, the justices reversed the trial judge's decision but didn't grant the mother full restoration of her parental rights. Instead, the court determined that she is entitled to a termination hearing because she hadn't received adequate notice.

"Conditioning the voluntary termination of parental rights on continuing post-adoption visitation irreconcilably conflicts with Indiana adoption law and is not permitted," Justice Frank Sullivan wrote, saying that it's inconsistent with the state's open adoption statutes and overrides the authority provided by Indiana Code Section 31-19-16-2.

In his separate opinion, Justice Boehm wrote that he would have treated this issue as a matter of contract - one that involved her termination consent but also contained a written condition that violated several state statutory provisions.

"In short, I do not agree that Mother's written consent is enforceable, but in this case she clearly waived any right to assert a bulletproof right to visitation, and the termination is no longer open to question," he 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT