Judicial decisions on appeals to set aside judgment of TPR

Opinions from various courts of appeal and supreme courts - both federal and state.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM


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

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 pm


User avatar
LindaJM
Posts: 3171
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Postby LindaJM » Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:24 pm

Marina wrote:http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10310806ebb.pdf

Tiffany Black v. Howard County Department of Child Services - 2008

Indiana Court of Appeals

This judicial opinion denies Tiffany Black's appeal.

She was apparently promised post-TPR visitations in exchange for voluntary relinquishment just before a TPR trial was about to start. After a few months social workers returned to court behind her back and got a court order terminating visitations because according to the adopters, the children were upset after visitations and wetting their beds. Typical specious complaints against parental visitations.

The appeals judge stated that the addendum drafted by Tiffany Black's attorney regarding post-adoptive visitation was unenforceable because it was an illegal addition to the TPR agreement. Also, Tiffany didn't prove fraud when she appealed.

This looks like collusion between the mother's attorney and the caseworkers to get the voluntary relinquishment before a TPR trial.

I've copied the pdf file of this judicial decision and am adding it to this thread as an attachment.
Attachments
tpr-false-promise-of-post-adoptive-visitations.pdf
False promise of post-TPR visitation privileges.
(543.31 KiB) Downloaded 80 times
Sample Document Library

Please keep in mind that none of us are lawyers and we can't give legal advice. We are simply telling you what we would do in a similar situation. It is to your advantage to get a lawyer.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke ... so try to do something to change the system ...

User avatar
LindaJM
Posts: 3171
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Postby LindaJM » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:11 am

Marina wrote:http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/JV/JV07-0078.pdf

Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security - 2006

((Economic Security???? Doesn't that say it all about what CPS is to them???))

Arizona Court of Appeals

CPS changed the case plan to TPR before an entire year went by as they stated the mother wasn't complying with the court ordered service plan.

A series of court appointed attorneys quit and the hearing was postponed repeatedly.

The mother missed a hearing. She stated that the CPS worker told her that the hearing had been postponed again; the CPS worker denied it and the judge jumped to the conclusion, without evidence, that the mother was lying and the caseworker was not.

At the next hearing the mother, whose attorney didn't show up, verbally requested a motion to set aside default, and the judge appointed yet another attorney and told her they must type a motion. He then sent her away and held the TPR hearing with just the CPS caseworker, and approved the TPR.

The mother's appeal was granted in part, denied in part. Because she didn't have access to counsel and because the judge sent her away before the TPR hearing, the case was remanded to juvenile court.
Attachments
tpr-mother-excluded-from-hearing.pdf
The judge sent mother away from the TPR hearing before listening to the caseworker's testimony and granting the TPR. The mother didn't have access to counsel.
(66.73 KiB) Downloaded 61 times
Sample Document Library

Please keep in mind that none of us are lawyers and we can't give legal advice. We are simply telling you what we would do in a similar situation. It is to your advantage to get a lawyer.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke ... so try to do something to change the system ...


Return to “Judicial Opinions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests