Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court deadlocked on a petition to hear a case in which the termination of a mother’s parental rights was overturned on appeal — the second reversal of the trial court’s termination of the same mother’s parental rights in the case. An appeals court held that affirming the termination in this mother’s case would set “a terrifying precedent.”
Chief Justice Loretta Rush did not participate in deciding whether to grant transfer last week in Termination: K.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al., 20A-JT-271. The four remaining justices split, with justices Steven David and Christopher Goff supporting the appeal and Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter voting against transfer.
The 2-2 deadlock let stand the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in October that reversed termination of mother T.K.’s parental rights in Marion Superior Court.
The appellate panel in a decision written by Judge Nancy Vaidik and joined by judges L. Mark Bailey and Leanna Weissmann concluded that while DCS was correct to terminate father’s parental rights in a related case, mother had proven to be a fit and available parent. Terminating her rights was “contrary to the purpose of the termination statute and to case law,” the COA panel held.
The appellate panel further noted that the Marion Superior Court’s finding that “DCS has made reasonable efforts toward reunification” is clearly erroneous. The matter will now be remanded for further proceedings, per the COA’s opinion.
“We acknowledge the importance of permanency and stability in a child’s life. But this alone cannot trump the fundamental and constitutional right parents have to the care and custody of their children,” Vaidik wrote for the panel. “Essentially, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights because — in the four non-consecutive months she was allowed to attempt parenting time — she was ‘unable to build a bond with [Child.]’
“However, Mother and Child previously had a strong bond, a bond DCS wrongly severed years ago and made no true attempt to repair. Allowing DCS to remove a child from its fit parent, stall reunification until there is no relationship left, and then claim reunification cannot occur because of the lack of relationship would set a terrifying precedent,” the appellate panel wrote.
Acknowledging that “reunification could have serious psychological and emotional ramifications for Child,” the appellate court concluded that the alternative is worse.
“DCS cannot be allowed to wrongly withhold a child from a fit, loving, and available parent for years and then ask this Court to affirm that injustice in the name of the child’s happiness. This is a painful decision, and there is no happy outcome. We cannot give Mother and Child back the relationship they once had or the years they have lost together. We cannot give Child the future he wants with his foster family. We can only follow the law, which requires us to reinstate the parental rights of Mother, a willing and able natural parent,” it concluded.
The case was among 14 petitions for transfer the court acted on for the week ending Friday. Just one petition was granted, simultaneous to a ruling also issued Friday — Jane Doe, et al. v. Carmel Operator, LLC, et al., Indiana Supreme Court transfer actions may be viewed here.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.