ALL TPR CASE LAWS/PARENTAL IMMUNITIES LAWS PLACE HERE

For those who need to know the laws.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
good dad
Site Admin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Minnesota

ALL TPR CASE LAWS/PARENTAL IMMUNITIES LAWS PLACE HERE

Postby good dad » Sun May 14, 2006 12:14 am

Here you go Dazee
*********************
My advice is my opinion and not legal advice
*********************
A bad lawyer is worse then no lawyer and bad advice is worse then no advice....

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:49 am

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/ ... 220052.pdf

Parents Cannot Be Jailed Over Reunification Plan Violations—S.C.High Court Overturns Mother’s Jail Term for Refusing Drug Treatment link below

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/nola033109.htm
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:51 am

In re D.C., 2004 Ill. Lexis 364, Docket No. 95841 (3/18/04). An adjudication of parental unfitness as to some children cannot be used to deprive parental rights to a child born later. At a hearing in August 1999, Tontorya C. admitted allegations of neglect as to her three children. The children were adjudicated neglected minors and were made wards of the court. Tontorya gave birth to another child, P.C., on January 20, 2001. Five days later, DCFS filed a neglect petition alleging that P.C. was "in substantial risk of physical harm due to the fact that her siblings were already under the guardianship of DCFS as a result of neglect by Tontorya, and that Tontorya had not made sufficient efforts or progress to allow for the return of those children." Tontorya admitted those allegations of neglect, so the court found P.C. to be a neglected minor. P.C. was made a ward of the court with DCFS as her guardian in May 2001.

In September 2001, DCFS filed a petition to terminate Tontorya’s parental rights as to all four children. The DCFS alleged that Tontorya was an unfit parent and that she had "failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of her children during the nine-month period beginning November 1, 2000 and ending July 31, 2001."

In March 2002, the circuit court ruled in favor of the DCFS. In May 2002, the court terminated Tontorya’s parental rights to all four children. The appellate court affirmed the termination of rights as to the first three children, but reversed as to P.C. The supreme court affirmed because DCFS did not show that Tontorya was an unfit parent, as to P.C., during the period required by the Adoption Act.

Section 1(D)(m)(iii) of the Adoption Act states the possible grounds for a finding of unfitness. The DCFS petition proceeded on the third ground: failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child during the nine-month period that proceeds the first nine months after an adjudication of neglect. P.C. was not adjudicated neglected until April 27, 2001. Thus, the nine-month period from November 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001, was not, with respect to P.C., a "9-month period after the end of the initial 9-month period following the adjudication."

The court rejected the State’s argument that "unfitness as to one child is unfitness as to all." The court stated that "it is always necessary to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is unfit with respect to each child, based on some ground set forth in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act.

The court also rejected the State’s argument that its failure to adhere to the precise language of the Adoption Act was in keeping with the intent of the legislature. The court focused on the extreme consequences of terminating parental rights and stated: "We do not agree with the State that adherence to the literal language of the statute would be demonstrably at odds with legislative intent. Although the State’s expansive interpretation of the statute would ‘speed up the process’ of adoption, expediency is not our only concern. We are mindful that termination of parental rights is an extraordinary measure. Thus, when conducting such proceedings, it is not simple logic, but the literal language of the statute that must control."

http://www.dcba.org/legal/case_law0504.htm
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:52 am

CASE LAW/TPR OF PARENT-CHILD BONDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Law Development: Agency Actions that Make Parent-Child Bonding Impossible Make Termination of Parental Rights Unconstitutional

Case Law Development: Agency Actions that Make Parent-Child Bonding Impossible Make Termination of Parental Rights Unconstitutional
The Illinois Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's termination of parental rights in a case in which mother's 10-month-old son and her older daughters had been removed for neglect. The girls were placed with grandparents but the son was placed in a foster home. Soon thereafter, mother was convicted of drug violations and incarcerated for two years. After nine-months of incarceration, the court held a hearing and determined she was unfit. During mother's incarceration, Mother was not allowed visitation with her children. She was finally allowed telephone contact 16 months into her incarceration and later was allowed in-person visitation with daughters, but not her son. After her release from prison, and on the basis of an evaluation by a psychologist regarding the trauma of resuming visitation with her son, visitation was restricted to twice-monthly meetings in the social services offices with the foster mother present, and mother was not be be introduced as his mother but as a relative named "Jenny."

At a hearing regarding termination, mother was able to reverse the court's finding of unfitness regarding her daughters, with whom she had regular visitation, but the trial court found that the best interests of son were to terminate mother's rights as she had not bonded with her son and he was bonded with the foster family. The court of appeals noted that the trial court was correct in focusing on the best interest of the child analysis at this point in the termination process since "once a finding of unfitness has been made, all considerations must yield to the best interest of the child." The court's task at that point is to "assess the relative degree to which the child has bonded to his foster parents and his biological parent, taking into consideration the natural harm to the relationship caused by the parent's derelictions. ... However, it seems that any harm to the parent's relationship with the child must be assessed absent artificial or coercive intervention of others into the bonding process. Such an assessment could not be made in this case, and there has, therefore, been a fundamental injustice to respondent."

The court concluded that mother's constitutional rights would be violated if her parental rights were terminated given the agency's prior failure to promote visitation, much less reunification, and its deception of the son regarding his mother's identity. "The [termination] statute nowhere suggests or condones decisions of child welfare agencies, enforced by the courts, prior to the best interest hearing that allow a parent to believe that she is progressing toward reunification while ensuring that she will fail the best interest test. When the actions make the best interest hearing a futile gesture there has been a violation of due process tainting the constitutionality of the termination of respondent's parental rights."

In re O.S., 2006 Ill. App. LEXIS 333 (April 17, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 25, 2006 bgf)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family ... index.html
_________________
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:53 am

PARENTAL IMMUNITY/ DEC OF FACTS/OBJECTIONS CORRECTIONS FORM

http://www.irritantnumber4.com/2005/02/ ... mmuni.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This can be put in your Declaration of Facts and Objections Corrections Forms


Parental Immunity* and family law
From Buono v Scalia (Michael, not A.) 179 N.J. 131, 843 A.2d 1120 (N.J.,2004.) citing Foldi v. Jeffries
93 N.J. 533, 461 A.2d 1145 (N.J.,1983.)

"The Court reached its determination by evaluating two competing principles, still relevant today. The first tenet is "that liability ordinarily should be imposed upon those who wrongfully injure others." Id. at 544, 461 A.2d 1145. The second is that parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their own beliefs without undue interference from the courts. Id. at 545, 461 A.2d 1145. In a lengthy but critical passage, the Court observed:

There are certain areas of activities within the family sphere involving parental discipline, care, and control that should and must remain free from judicial intrusion. Parents should be free to determine how the physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual growth of their children can best be promoted. That is both their duty and their privilege. Indeed, every parent has a unique philosophy of the rearing of children. That philosophy is an outgrowth of the parent's own economic, educational, cultural, ethical, and religious background, all of which affect the parent's judgment on how his or her children should be prepared for the responsibilities of adulthood. Such philosophical considerations come directly to the fore in matters of parental supervision.

**1124 There is no recognized correct theory on how much freedom a parent should allow his or her children. Some parents believe that a child must be made self-reliant at an early age and accordingly give their children a great deal of independence. To outsiders, such independence may look like indifference or neglect. On the other hand, some parents believe that their children must be vigilantly monitored from infancy through adolescence. To outsiders, such vigilance and concern may appear to shelter the children from the world and to thwart their development.

As each parent is different, so is each child. There is no one ideal "formula" for how much supervision a child should receive at a given age. What may be perfectly safe to entrust to one five year-old may be utterly dangerous in the hands of another child of the same age. This disparity often proves true even among siblings in the same household. The parent is clearly in the best position to know the limitations and capabilities of his or her own children. These intangibles cannot be adequately conveyed within the formal atmosphere of a courtroom. Nor do we believe that a court or a jury can evaluate these highly subjective factors without somehow supplanting the parent's own individual philosophy."
_________________
Last edited by Dazeemay on Sun May 14, 2006 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:54 am

**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 14, 2006 7:55 am

When is Spanking a Grounds for Termination of Parental Right

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Law Development: When is Spanking a Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights?

The Texas Court of Appeals concluded that "infrequent spankings of a child that leave "marks" or visible bruises 24 hours after the spanking" did not provide clear and convincing evidence of a parent's endangerment of the child to justify termination of parental rights. The court's opinion explores the propriety of corporal punishment, noting that it is "an increasingly controversial subject." The court cites a variety of cases from other jurisdictions and statistical reports on the declining frequency of corporal punishment, citing Deana Pollard, Banning Child Corporal Punishment, 77 TUL. L. REV. 575, 582 (2003). The court also cited studies regarding the prevalence of corporal punishment and suggestions that this may be an effective discipline tool. The court concluded that it is "not a court's function to determine whether parents measure up to an ideal, but to determine whether the child's welfare has been compromised." The court held that the evidence in this case was "both legally and factually insufficient to support a termination of parental rights."

In the Interest of J.A.J., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10331 (December 13, 2005)
Opinion on the web at http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/o ... onID=81549 (Last visited December 19, 2005 bgf)
_________________
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sun May 14, 2006 8:17 pm

There may be more TPR case law at this site:

http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page353.htm

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

COURT OF APPEALS/TPR

Postby Dazeemay » Sun May 28, 2006 7:24 am

**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Mon May 29, 2006 8:01 pm

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family ... index.html

Case Law Development: Delaware Supreme Court Holds that Parents have Right To Counsel in Private TPR Actions

In a termination of parental rights proceeding brought by a private party, the Supreme Court of Delaware holds that “Because the jeopardy to the parent's rights is identical [as in an action brought by the state], we hold that a parent's right to seek court-appointed counsel is the same regardless of who initiates a termination proceeding.”

Walker v. Walker, 2006 Del. LEXIS 81 (February 9, 2006)


Opinion on the web (last visited February 14, 2006 bgf)

February 14, 2006 in Termination of Parental Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

GROUNDS FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Postby Dazeemay » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:47 pm

**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Table of Appeals, TPR, Virginia

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:13 am

TABLE OF APPEALS OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA:
CASES DISPOSED FROM JANUARY 1, 1996 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2006


http://www.courts.state.va.us/ed/resour ... _table.pdf
Last edited by Marina on Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Sufficient evidence court case, Nebraska, Shelby L. case

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:43 am

Sufficient evidence court case, Nebraska, Shelby L. case

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5 ... tal_Rights

http://www.nebar.com/resources/nelawexp ... cjul20.htm

- [Evidence:] (Proof.) For a juvenile court to terminate parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2004), it must find that termination is in the child’s best interests and that one or more of the statutory grounds listed in this section have been satisfied. The State must prove these facts by clear and convincing evidence. ••• In a juvenile proceeding to terminate parental rights, the evidence adduced to prove termination on any statutory ground other than Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(7) (Reissue 2004) is highly relevant to the best interests of the juvenile, as it would show abandonment, neglect, unfitness, or abuse.



posting under "Nebraska" & "Research resources/ standards of evidence"
_________________

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Insuff. evidence- Tenn, In re A.L.B., N.W.B. and C.B.B

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:53 am

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/TCA ... ALBOPN.pdf

In preparing this opinion, the Court has read through many termination cases, and we are
struck by the absence of any other factors besides the poverty of the family and poor living
conditions in the home. In most cases we also see prevalent physical or sexual abuse, drug and
alcohol abuse, severe neglect and unconcern for the children’s welfare, lack of medical care, lack
of supervision, extreme physical and emotional delays in development of the children, mental illness
of the parent, prostitution, severe mental incapacity of parent, criminal activity, incarceration, or
other equally egregious factor. This case only deals with extremely dirty living conditions and
extreme poverty, with no evidence of actual harm to the children.
*
*
*
That the foster parents’ have a home, which can offer more in terms of
material things, and quality of life is undisputed. That they are also intelligent and
can aid the children in school is evident. But those advantages are not the question,
nor is custody the question. The issue is much more permanent: It’s whether you
sever the blood relationship –- the symbolic umbilical cord between mother and
child. It’s whether Loretta Drinnon will ever suffer the pain and pleasure of being
a mother again to these children.
Last edited by Marina on Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Insufficient evidence- Indiana- Matter of R.J.

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:04 am

Insufficient evidence

In re the Matter of R.J.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fifth District
No. 45A05-0411-JV-614, June 28, 2005


http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd ... 502mpb.pdf


posting under Indiana
and Research resources/ standards of evidence

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Insufficient evidence- Missouri- case of S.T.C

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:45 am

Insufficient evidence

In the Interest of S.T.C.
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District
No. 26298, June 23, 2005



http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopin ... enDocument


"However, "[c]ourts have required that abuse or neglect sufficient to support termination under section 211.447.4(2) be based on conduct at the time of termination, not just at the time jurisdiction was initially taken." In the Interest of K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Mo.banc 2004). "Past behavior can support grounds for termination, but only if it is convincingly linked to predicted future behavior." Id. at 9-10."


"There is no question that there was evidence that Child has been under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for more than one year preceding the termination hearing. However, the evidence cited by the trial court in support of its findings under this ground does not substantiate the contention that the conditions under which jurisdiction was assumed continued to exist. Those conditions were Appellant's alleged use of cocaine, and, according to Ms. Cobb's testimony, Appellant's "instability to keep a home and a job." There was no evidence at trial that Appellant continued to use cocaine, and, as stated previously, there was no testimony that Appellant suffered from a chemical dependency.
Subsequent to custody being taken, the only reference we find regarding Appellant's alleged substance abuse was, according to Maria Graham, Appellant's admitted use of marijuana in May of 2003. Ms. Graham testified that the barrier to reunification was Appellant's "continued substance abuse." We do not find this to be substantial evidence that "the conditions leading to the assumption of jurisdiction continue to exist[.]" (FN4)
Furthermore, we found no testimony to support the finding that the continuation of the parent/child relationship greatly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable, permanent home. There was no testimony received on this issue, although there was evidence that Child is developing normally and that the foster parent "indicated a willingness" to "consider adopting [Child]."
The finding that Appellant failed to keep a stable home or job was not supported by the evidence at trial. Throughout Ms. Graham's service as Appellant's caseworker, Appellant lived at the same address, and there was no testimony that Appellant's housing was inappropriate, or that there was "drug activity in and about the premises." Ms. Graham testified that Appellant was working in a part-time position, at Food for Less.
"[A] parent's failure to comply with a written service agreement does not, in itself, constitute a ground for termination parental rights." C.N.G., 109 S.W.3d 702, 707 (Mo.App. 2003). "It is merely a factor to consider in deciding whether the grounds set out in section 211.447.4(3) exist." Id. The evidence at trial regarding Appellant's noncompliance with the social service plan, we believe, was not sufficient to justify termination of her parental rights. That mother failed to complete parenting classes to which Appellant had been referred prior to Ms. Graham's assignment as caseworker was not within Ms. Graham's personal knowledge, as she stated that she thought the referral was made within the first six months of the juvenile court taking jurisdiction, a period of time in which Ms. Graham was not assigned to Appellant's case. Further, there was no testimony that Appellant was "discharged from several programs due to positive drug screens and non-compliance[.]"
As to the finding that Appellant failed to provide verification of successful completion of counseling, Ms. Graham's testimony was: "We had asked that [Appellant], first and foremost, complete her drug and alcohol abuse treatment, and we would continue follow-up therapy as needed from there." She then indicated that they never got "to the second step." [Tr. 45] We cannot find testimony to support this finding.
"The goal of a termination hearing is not to justify termination, but to determine if grounds exist for termination." K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d at 19. "It is only when grave and compelling reasons exist that parental rights should be severed[.]" In the Interest of A.R.S., 609 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Mo.App. 1980). "The severance of the parent-child relationship is an exercise of awesome power which requires literal compliance with statutory authority." In re S.P.W., 707 S.W.2d 814, 820 (Mo.App. 1986). "By requiring strict compliance with the rules of evidence, we help to insure that a decision to terminate parental rights is made only on reliable, credible and relevant evidence." Id.. "Statutes that provide for the termination of parental rights are strictly construed in favor of the parent and preservation of the natural parent-child relationship." K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d at 12. As stated previously, the state bears the burden of proof, which must be met by the presentation of substantial evidence. Id. at 9. Here, we do not find that the State met its burden. Point II also has merit.
Because we find that neither statutory ground used for termination is supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, we must reverse the termination of Appellant's parental rights.
The judgment is reversed."

posting under Missouri
and Research resources

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

The ADA Defense in Termination of Parental Rights Actions

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:29 am

The ADA Defense in Termination of Parental Rights Actions

http://www.tlmosier.4t.com/Note.html

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

database of TPR summaries-- appears to be Oregon

Postby Marina » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:46 am

database of TPR summaries-- appears to be Oregon

http://www.mcadlaw.com/termination_of_p ... rights.htm


User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

BIRTH MOTHERS RIGHTS

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:44 am

**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

A "Better Family" is Insufficient Justification

Postby Marina » Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:07 pm

Case Law Development: A "Better Family" is Insufficient Justification for Termination of Parental Rights

Nov. 14, 2006
Texas

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family ... al_rights/

http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cg ... +D+2040932

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:41 pm

Florida

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D06-0865.pdf

...

L.D. argues that

no competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that she engaged in conduct towards her child that demonstrated her continued involvement would threaten his life, well-being or physical, mental, or emotional health, irrespective of the provision of services.

L.D. further argues that termination of her parental rights was not the least restrictive alternative.

We agree and reverse the trial court’s termination order.


...

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:44 pm


Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:49 am

.
http://www.childlaw.us/2005/03/

Child Welfare Institute

Terminating Parental Rights when Visitation is Prohibited
By James R. Marsh on March 28, 2005 1:08 PM |

In a matter of first impression anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong), the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a statute which allowed termination of parental rights based on a judicial order which prohibited visitation was narrowly tailored to serve state's compelling interest of protecting children from unfit parents.

The Wisconsin law states that a "[continual] denial of periods of physical placement or visitation" is a ground for terminating parental rights. A finding under the provision requires that:

(a) the parent has been denied periods of physical placement by court order in an action affecting the family or has been denied visitation under an order, and

(b) at least one year has elapsed since the order denying periods of physical placement or visitation was issued and the court has not subsequently modified its order so as to permit periods of physical placement or visitation.

The parent argued that the law violates substantive due process because it does not require any evidence of parental unfitness. The no-contact orders denying physical placement or visitation are based on the best interest of the child rather than on a finding that the parent is unfit. Since these orders are the sole basis for a finding that grounds exist for terminating his parental rights, the statute is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest and violates his substantive due process right.

The court disagreed finding that only after multiple steps was the parent faced with a fact-finding hearing on whether this ground for terminating parental rights existed. The findings that are required for a court to proceed against a parent at each of the steps prior to the final step involve an evaluation of a parent's fitness. It is the cumulative effect of the determinations made at each of the previous steps that causes the finding made under this TPR provision to amount to unfitness.

The court concluded that, on its face, the law is narrowly tailored to serve the state's compelling interest of protecting children from unfit parents, including the temporal component in this interest that promotes children's welfare through stability and permanency in their lives.

Two judges dissented finding that no matter how you slice and dice the statutory scheme used in the present case, nowhere can be found a lower court's finding of the parent's individualized unfitness. The dissenters criticized the majority opinion for inferring unfitness when there was not an explicit finding of unfitness aside from a finding of a statutory ground. They found that the parent did not have an individualized judicial determination that he is an unfit parent. Under the statutory scheme, not only is such a determination unnecessary, but the parent was precluded from having a determination on that very issue.

Quoting from one of the dissenters: "The ramifications of the majority opinion in this case cannot be understated. A child may be taken away from a parent, in the best interests of the child and for reasons that have nothing to do with the unfitness of that parent. Conditions for return of the child can be ordered by the court, which simply cannot be met for reasons having nothing to do with the unfitness of the parent. At the expiration of one year, a parent may have his or her parental rights terminated absent any particularized showing of unfitness, simply because he or she cannot satisfy the conditions set by the trial court."

No word on whether this case is headed to the United States Supreme Court, but I think the issue is ripe for review and could result in one of the most significant parental rights/child welfare decisions in decades. What do you think?

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:08 pm

.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/c ... 0562-1.pdf

Instead, the findings suggest that Isabella sought the
opportunity to display filial affection, but was repeatedly denied.
Because the trial court’s findings concerning the relevant sixmonth
statutory period are insufficient, and the findings
-11-
concerning Isabella’s actions outside the relevant six-month
statutory period are contrary to a conclusion that she abandoned
Cooper, we remand to the trial court for additional findings with
regard to the six-month statutory period...

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:18 pm

.

http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/index.php

ADOPTION & CHILD WELFARE LAWSITE


I started posting recent cases from this website, but there were too many.

Look to the right of the home page for the option to seach the

"case archives."

There are options for "topic," and for "search range," which is the date range. For example, choosing "3 months" for all topics yielded 40 results.
Last edited by Marina on Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Legal Research”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests