Articles on Parental Rights

A place to post and discuss news.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

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

Articles on Parental Rights

Postby Marina » Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:55 pm

.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/170725.html

Posted on Sat, Sep. 08, 2007

Court: Teen parenthood terminated too quickly

IMMATURITY, AGE CAN'T BE SOLE REASONS, APPEALS PANEL RULES

By Valarie Honeycutt Spears
[email protected]

The youth and immaturity of a teen parent cannot alone be grounds for taking away parental rights, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled.

A decision last week to reverse the termination of parental rights for a girl who was 14 when her son was born could have implications for the more than 10,000 teens who become pregnant in Kentucky each year and who are at risk of permanently losing custody, said the teen's court-appointed attorney John Helmers.

"It's going to give them a better chance to parent their children," said Helmers of Louisville. "In Jefferson County, we've seen an increase in termination sought for minor mothers."

The ruling involved a teen who was in foster care along with her infant, though much of the time they were assigned to different homes. The mother and son were not identified in the ruling. As of Thursday, there were 118 instances in Kentucky in which the state had placed a baby in foster care whose parent was also in foster care, state officials said.

The girl's rights were terminated in 2006 in Jefferson Family Court. On Aug. 31, the court of appeals reversed that decision, saying the court terminated the teen's rights by taking only the word of one state social worker, with no evidence from professionals assessing "her psychological and mental capacity to develop the required abilities to effectively parent a child." The mother is now 19.

"We are convinced that the mother's rights were terminated based solely on her past conduct as a juvenile with no consideration as to her future parenting abilities," the ruling said. "If a parent's negative behavior is attributable to ... immaturity and the parent is reasonably likely to develop the necessary parenting skills within a reasonable time after entering adulthood, we believe termination is a premature severance of the parent-child relationship."

The decision should not be taken to mean that no parent under 18 should have rights terminated, the ruling said. But the ruling said that if the cabinet wants to terminate rights, it should "specifically" present findings that prove the parents won't ever be able to parent the child.

Court of appeals Judge Kelly Thompson and Judge John W. Graves made the ruling, but Judge Joy Moore dissented, saying the girl's "parental rights were not terminated because of her age or immaturity; rather they were terminated because she continuously refused to act as a responsible parent."

Cabinet for Health and Family Services officials say they can't immediately say how many parents under 18 have had their rights terminated in the past 12 months. But the officials say there was no termination of parental rights among teen parents living in foster care from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007.

"We are not making an effort to increase the termination of parental rights of teen parents," said Mark A. Washington, commissioner of the Department for Community Based Services. "We look at each case individually, no matter the age of the parents. We consistently work with our community partners and providers to make reunification and preservation services available. Our overriding goal is to keep families safe and together whenever possible."

In August 2003, the girl voluntarily committed herself and her 3-month-old baby to state foster care. The cabinet started termination proceedings in November 2005.

When she appeared at the termination hearing, the girl was employed, had completed 11th grade and various parenting programs, and was making progress at being a better parent, the ruling said. The family court terminated her rights anyway, saying she had earlier run away from her foster home and failed to cooperate with the cabinet's efforts to help her take on motherhood.

The court of appeals ruling said her past behavior was that of a "troubled teen wanting to escape her situation rather than intending to abandon her child."

The girl never abused the child, the ruling said, and was not guilty of neglect because her son was not in her custody, but that of the foster parents.

"We believe that when the parent is also a child, the courts should terminate parental rights with caution and give consideration to the parent's age," the ruling said.

Federal laws give parents little time to fix their problems before allowing states to initiate adoptions of foster children.

For the past 19 months, the way Kentucky removes children from their parents has been under review by the cabinet and child advocacy groups. The Kentucky General Assembly failed to pass reforms in 2007, but the cabinet's Blue Ribbon Panel on Adoption is drafting a new set of proposals for 2008.

In the teen mother's situation, the cabinet intends to petition the court of appeals for a rehearing of the case and for the case to be heard by the entire court of appeals, rather than just the three-judge panel that heard it, said cabinet spokeswoman Vikki Franklin.

David Richart, executive director of the Louisville-based National Institute for Families, Youth and Children, said the case exemplifies a common problem of the cabinet "not giving parents a chance to solve problems" and going to court without enough evidence to justify termination of parental rights.

Terry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, also in Louisville, said teen parents shouldn't be "punished" because of their age but also shouldn't be given special treatment.

The court of appeals ruling also lamented the low fees for court-appointed attorneys and legal representation for teen parents. The Jefferson Family Court had ordered the cabinet to pay the girl's attorneys fees for her appeal of the termination, more than the $500 limit under Kentucky law.

But the court of appeals said the cabinet did not have to pay more than $500, which was exhausted at the family court level. The ruling said that the General Assembly had refused to change laws that would give court-appointed attorneys fighting terminations more than $500, calling that amount "woefully inadequate" to compensate appointed attorneys. The ruling also said the General Assembly should change laws to make sure that the "child parent" has legal representation from the outset instead of just at the termination hearing.

Helmers, the teen's attorney, said he will appeal the portion of the ruling dealing with attorney fees.

The case goes back to the Jefferson Family Court. Helmers said his client has not been able to visit her child in at least a year. He said he will petition the family court next week to resume her visits and otherwise help her reunite with the boy.

"This," Helmers said, "will give our client another chance."

.

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

Postby Marina » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:31 pm

.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=14419314

NPR - Listen

Teen to Test New Parental-Rights Law
by Chana Joffe-Walt



.

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

Postby Marina » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:40 pm

.

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9840602.html

Brothers' case to petition for parental rights will go to trial




Published: Sep 17, 2007 at 5:22 PM PDT

Story Updated: Sep 17, 2007 at 5:22 PM PDT
By Akiko Fujita

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. -- Six years ago after the state took them away from their parents, Jesse and Tim Wolcott are testing a new law they hope will legally reunite them with their mom and dad.

"I will find there's adequate reason for this to go forward," Kitsap County Superior Court Commissioner Thurman W. Lowans said in court on Monday.

It was a small victory in the long fight for the Wolcott family. It means their case will go to trial.

The legal battle began in 2001 when Elaine Wolcott-Ehrhardt was arrested for drunk driving. That arrest, and her ex-husband's history of methamphetamine addiction, gave the state enough reason to take the twin boys away.

Two years later, Elaine and Rober lost their parental rights.

"I thought they would say I had completed everything they had ordered me to do, my children were not going to benefit from this," Elaine said. "It didn't turn out that way."

The decision tore the now 15-year-old twins apart. They ran away from foster homes to visit their parents, and both turned to drugs to dull the pain.

"I'd run away, go to jail, get out. Run away to my family, go to jail, get out, run away," said Tim Wolcott. "I'd just keep doing that."

Elain wanted to step in, but legally she couldn't. So she asked legislators for help.

They signed a law that said teens could legally petition for parental rights, and Tim and Jesse became the first to use it in court.

Elaine and Robert insist they've changed.

"I run a clean and sober house," Elaine said.

.

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

Postby Marina » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:29 am

.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=667361

Woman gets 2nd chance for son

Appeals court grants hearing

By MARIE ROHDE
[email protected]
Posted: Sept. 25, 2007

A Milwaukee woman who lost her parental rights will get a second chance to act as her 5-year-old son's mother, the First District Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Tuesday.


Buy a link hereAccording to the decision written by Judge Patricia Curley, the boy was born cocaine-positive. He was put in the care of his grandmother, then in foster care because his grandmother was deemed unable to provide care and his living environment was found unsafe.

In 2005, the state filed a motion to terminate the mother's parental rights as well as the rights of the child's father.

Although the mother was told she had to appear in person at every hearing, she did not, court records show. Part of the time she was in jail; another time she falsely said she had been in traffic court. Circuit Judge Thomas P. Donegan, told there was a warrant for her arrest on the date of the hearing, proceeded to find cause for the termination of her rights.

A final hearing was held 14 months later and she again was not present, although her attorney appeared by telephone. Her rights were terminated.

Several weeks later, the mother said she wanted to appeal. Again she did not show up for a hearing. The court ordered her lawyer to file a report that the appeal was without merit.

The appeals court, citing an earlier Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, said the woman was entitled to legal representation and reversed the ruling terminating her rights. The case will be sent back to the lower court for a further hearing.

Noting that the decision puts the boy's future in flux, the court found that what was at stake were the fundamental rights of parents and their children.

.

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

Postby Marina » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:30 pm

.

http://www.kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=7400600

Religion trumps child welfare on immunizations in CPS cases



Associated Press - November 23, 2007 3:04 PM ET

PHOENIX (AP) - An appellate court has decided a conflict between a parent's right to religious freedom and the public's interest in child protection.

A divided Court of Appeals panel ruled that Arizona law doesn't empower the state to override a mother's religion-based stance against immunization of her infant daughter who had been removed for alleged neglect.

The ruling comes in a Pima County case involving a mother whose daughter didn't receive proper nutrition.

The majority opinion said religious freedom is among parental rights that remain in place even after a child is taken into state custody for his or her protection.

The state argued that shouldn't apply in cases involving parents incapable of proper and effective parenting.

.

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

Postby Marina » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:38 pm

.

http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles ... 891919.txt

Court denies
immunization to youngster in foster ca
re

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services



The state Court of Appeals has slapped down efforts by Child Protective Services to have a youngster in foster care immunized over a parent’s objections.

In a divided ruling, the majority said while the state has legal custody, the parent — who presumably would get the child back some day — has certain “residual rights’’ the state must honor when possible. Judge Peter Eckerstrom said there has to be a compelling need to overrule a parent.

But Judge Philip Espinosa, in his dissent, said his colleagues were ignoring one very obvious fact: A court gave temporary custody to Child Protective Services after concluding that the parent, identified only as Diana H., was unable or unwilling to provide the necessary care and control of her daughter Cheyenne.

“The state thus has every reason to question Diana’s ability to make the best decisions for Cheyenne’s care and no reason to presume that she would necessarily act in accordance with Cheyenne’s best interests,’’ Espinosa wrote.

The ruling could have implications beyond immunizations in cases where children are placed in foster care.

First, Eckerstrom said the state would run afoul of both the state and federal constitutions if it seeks to impose its values on a child which differ from those chosen by a parent. Advertisement

Potentially more sweeping, the judge said the laws which allow the state to take temporary custody of a child specifically spell out what powers and responsibilities that includes. These range from the right of physical custody and to discipline the child to the requirement to provide for adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

What that means, Eckerstrom said, is anything not on that list remains the right of the biological parent.

Court records show the state sought custody of Cheyenne amid concerns the child was malnourished and Diana was unable to protect her from abuse from the girl’s father. Diana did not contest the state action. But she did argue against immunizations as contrary to her religious beliefs.

Eckerstrom acknowledged that the primary focus in these kinds of cases has to be the best interests of the child. But he said the law also says those “best interests’’ are served by the presumptive goal of reuniting the child with the parent.

And that means where possible having the parent involved in the child’s upbringing.

In this case, the judge noted that a doctor testified that a child Cheyenne’s age would normally have had 15 immunizations. But the doctor said none of the diseases poses a life-threatening risk to the child.

Eckerstrom said the state’s desire to immunize it might be different if there were some showing the child were particularly susceptible to one of the diseases, perhaps due to malnutrition.

But there was no such evidence here. And Eckerstrom said the public policy of the state is embodied in the fact the Legislature specifically gives parents in Arizona to exempt their children from immunization for religious grounds, “a decision we have no authority to second guess.’’

Espinosa, however, said once a judge gave the state legal custody of Cheyenne, even temporarily, it had the obligation to both provide comprehensive medical care and determine what care is in the child’s best interests.

He said the decision of his colleagues creates unforeseen problems. “Under the majority’s approach, if a parent raises a religious objection to a dependent child’s receiving medical care, the welfare of the child ceases to be the governing standard for the juvenile court,’’ Espinosa wrote. “This result is not only inconsistent with legislative intent but offends the state’s public policy of protecting and providing for its most helpless citizens — dependent children, whose parents are unable or unwilling to do so.’’

.

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

Postby Marina » Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:41 pm

.

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp ... 1&div=News

Civil, criminal issues collide in custody battle

11/27/2007 9:45:44 AM
Daily Journal




By Lena Mitchell
Daily Journal Corinth Bureau

TUPELO – Jamie Diane Kiefer’s legal case to get back her biological daughter isn’t that simple. It raises additional issues.

- Did she legally surrender her parental rights?

- If she didn’t, could she legally kidnap her own child?

- Doesn’t the child’s father still have his own parental rights?

- If she has rights or if the father still has rights, where does that leave the couple trying to adopt the child?

That’s just the beginning of this civil case, which Monday began to be heard by Judge Michael Malski.
Jamie Kiefer, 23, of Mantachie, was charged in July with kidnapping and armed robbery after allegedly taking the 5-month-old child known as Madison Erickson from the home of Jennifer and Matt Erickson, who want to adopt her. Jamie Kiefer is Madison’s birth mother and she calls the child by another name.

Kiefer is asking the court to rule on whether she surrendered her parental rights to Madison as she seeks to regain custody.

“Most adoption services require a waiting period so that the parent permitting the adoption can consider it, think about it, and if regrets arise can withdraw the consent,” said a local attorney, who asked his name not be used. “In Mississippi court action is required to protect the interests of the child.”

However, if the judge does not uphold Jamie Kiefer’s claim, he next will need to rule on whether parental rights of the child’s father, James Robert “Jimmy” Kiefer, should be terminated. He did not sign any agreement surrendering rights and was in jail when the child was removed from the Erickson home.

In written statements Kiefer has said she withdrew consent to give up her child for adoption soon after she made the agreement.

Kiefer faces criminal charges along with her sister, Rikki Swann, her father, Richard Triste, and another woman, Amanda Bell, in connection with the July 21 taking of the child from the Ericksons’ Mantachie residence.

Malski also closed Monday’s proceeding to the news media.

Contact Daily Journal Corinth Bureau reporter Lena Mitchell at 287-9822 or [email protected].

.

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

Postby Marina » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:14 pm

.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=89863&src=3

Neutral help sought in abuse case
By Tony Gordon | Daily Herald StaffContact writer
Published: 12/5/2007 12:34 AM


Parental rights are pitted against a defendant's rights in the case of a Cuba Township woman charged with child molestation.

Lake County Assistant Public Defender Jennifer Snyder on Tuesday asked a judge to appoint a lawyer for two children who police say were sexually abused by Yolanda Dipert, 46.

Snyder said she wants the lawyer to determine if the children, a 16-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl, will discuss the case with defense investigators independent of their father's wishes.

"The father is refusing access to the victims by our investigator," Snyder said. "We want a neutral party to speak to the children and determine if it is their decision not to speak to us, or simply their father's."

Assistant State's Attorney Eric Kalata said he told the children's father that victims in criminal cases are free to discuss their potential testimony with the defense but are under no obligation to do so.

Kalata said the father considered his options and then, because his children are minors, decided against allowing the defense investigator to interview them.

"The father is exercising his parental rights and prohibiting the further traumatizing of his children," Kalata said. "I do not think it is proper for this court to usurp the right of a parent to make decisions for his children."

Foreman said he wanted to research the law before making a decision on the request, and said he would rule on Dec. 11.

Dipert and her ex-brother-in-law, Lee Dipert, were charged in July 2006 with molesting the children on several occasions between 2002 and 2006.

Many of the sex acts, which police said took place at a house in unincorporated Cuba Township, were photographed and stored on computers.

Lee Dipert was on vacation in Alaska when a relative staying in his house in Valparaiso, Ind., discovered some of the photographs and called police.

Yolanda and Lee Dipert were charged with multiple counts of predatory sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography.

Lee Dipert pleaded guilty in May to two counts of predatory sexual assault of a child, and was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

He agreed to testify against Yolanda Dipert, who Kalata said has rejected a similar plea offer and is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 4.

Kalata said Dipert faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted of all charges against her.


.

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

Postby Marina » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:54 am

.

http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... source=rss

Mother says she didn’t ‘run off’ with child

by By Susan Reinhardt, [email protected]
published December 8, 2007 12:15 am


PUEBLO, Colo.- A woman accused of disappearing with her 4-year-old daughter after leaving Franklin to live in Colorado said this week she never intended to deny her husband parental rights.

Advertisement
Crystal "Amethyst" Tabor spoke after her former boyfriend, also the child's father, said in a Dec. 2 article that his daughter had been the victim of a parental abduction, a term used often by parents of missing children and their advocates.

Tabor and former boyfriend Timothy Shirley share custody of their daughter, although there is no formal custody agreement. Tabor left for Colorado in February 2006. Shirley said he had not heard from her since.

Tabor said this week she was taking college classes and gave birth to a son a week ago.

"I haven't had the money to come back and visit," she said. "I plan on residing in Colorado. This is my home, and I've made good friends here and where I plan on living. But I want it to be known I didn't run off with Adrianna."

Macon County Sheriff Robby Holland said Tabor was within her rights to move and take the child with her because there is no court custody arrangement.

Tabor's brother, Patrick Frary of Mars Hill, said Timothy Shirley and his wife Sadie Shirley had access to phone numbers of Amethyst Tabor's relatives and could have gotten in touch.

"Sadie and Timothy had my cell number," Frary said. "I gave it to them three weeks ago."

Frary said he provided the number for Tabor, who is living in Pueblo, Colo., with her mother and newborn child.

She said she moved to Colorado to be with her fiancé, who has since died. Her mother, Sandy Frary, also moved to the area to be with her child and grandchild.

"She's not a bad person," Sandy Frary said of her daughter. "She's not hiding or running. She just moved there and chose to stay."

She agreed to return to Franklin and allow Timothy Shirley supervised visits with his child. She said she also has no problem with him coming to Colorado to see his daughter.

The Shirleys said again this week they had no idea where to find Amethyst Tabor before she came forward.

.

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

Postby Marina » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:16 pm

.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=7495806

I-Team: Missing Girl's Parents Give Up Rights to Children

Updated: Dec 13, 2007 10:31 PM EST

The parents of missing three-year-old Everlyse Cabrera have surrendered their rights to her siblings.

The state had moved to have the parental rights of Marlena Alivas and Ernesto Cabrera terminated. Prosecutors claim the two are unfit parents.

Rather than let the court decide whether Olivas and Cabrera would ever get their kids back, the couple agreed to an open adoption with a foster family.

Everlyse is stilling missing after disappearing from her foster home last year. Everlyse's three brothers were placed together in another foster home shortly after she went missing. That family plans to adopt them.

"They have been bonded with the foster parents, they call the foster parents mother and father, we fought to get the newborn placed with them so they could stay together, and just looking at the overall picture they felt their kids would be better served in that home," said Gregor Mills, the attorney representing Olivas and Cabrera.

Olivas and Cabrera did not surrender their rights to Everlyse, should she be found.

The couple has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Clark County for its failure to protect Everlyse while in foster care. We're told that case is headed to mediation. Should a settlement be reached, the money could be divvied up a number of ways.

Everlyse's guardian ad litem believes any pay-out should be held in a trust for Everlyse or for her siblings.

.

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

Postby Marina » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:37 pm

.

http://www.ketv.com/news/15667920/detai ... a&psp=news

State's Mistake Denies Father Rights To His Child
State Director Admits Dropping Ball On Father's Notification

POSTED: 3:48 pm CDT March 21, 2008
UPDATED: 8:24 am CDT March 24, 2008


OMAHA, Neb. -- A Nebraska father said a mistake by the state denied him rights to his child.



Michael Eggleston met his 5-year-old daughter for the first time two years ago. At first, Eggleston said he wasn't sure whether he was the father.



"It was one of those relationships that went bad. She said she was pregnant," Eggleston said.

A paternity test proved he was the child's father and he began paying child support. But he said his ex-girlfriend didn't want him to be a part of the child's life. Eggleston married another woman and backed off.

"My wife and I sent Christmas presents, birthday presents, cards -- as long as we had an address. Often times, they were returned with negative response," Eggleston said.

In April 2006, Eggleston got a surprising letter from the Foster Care Review Board saying his child's mother had attempted suicide the previous summer and the child had been made a ward of the state.

"They told me that she had been in foster care with her grandmother for almost a year. Wow. I had no clue, and by that time -- well, they knew where I was to take my money, but how come no one ever notified me?" Eggleston said.

Attorney Amy Geren now represents Eggleston. She said that because the state dropped the ball, Eggleston missed out on an opportunity to gain custody of his child. He is suing the state.

"They knew exactly where to find him. They just didn't make any attempt to notify him. If the custodial mother is not able to care for that child, the first choice should be to place that child with the non-custodial parent," Geren said.

Nebraska Director of Children and Family Services Todd Landry said state policy is clear that the father should have been notified.

"We certainly made a mistake in this case. Absolutely. We made a mistake in not notifying that father, despite the fact that he had not had any involvement with the child in the past. That's no excuse," Landry said. "Nonetheless, what I want to point out is, we've learned from those errors. We've made improvements in our practice, and are making sure that our staff are following our policy that we have."

Eggleston and his attorney said there have been more problems. In December, the child's mother was arrested on suspicion of failing to appear in court for a criminal charge of phone intimidation. Court records show that the child was left home alone with her 16-year-old stepsister. No one notified Eggleston, he said, until the children failed to show up for school the next day.

"That's when he found out the children had been there alone the evening before because their mother was arrested," Geren said.

Eggleston said that when he notified the caseworker she picked the children up and brought them to the McDonald's across the street from the Sarpy County Jail, where they waited for the mother to bond out. Then the caseworker returned the children to their mother's care.

The mother said she objects to joint custody with Eggleston because he never wanted the child in the first place.

Eggleston said he just wants a safe, secure environment for his child, and he believes he and his wife can provide it.

"Someone needs to say, 'Hey, we need to look at this.' Maybe the system's broke," he said.

Eggleston now has visitation with his child every other week, but with the child custody case bogged down in several courts, it may take months to get the matter resolved.

This is Nebraska's first test case for a new law that allows state officials to give more than just a "no comment" on child abuse and neglect cases. LB 782, just signed within the last couple weeks, allows Landry to release information about children who are state wards.

"We want to make sure the public understands the cases we're involved in and what we're doing to help kids and families across our state," Landry said.

State Sen. Gwen Howard sponsored the legislation after the state was muzzled from releasing information on the death of 1-year-old foster child Davion Winrow. The legislation received more attention when the state was able to release little background information on Von Maur shooter Robert Hawkins, who had spent time as a state ward.

.

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

Postby Marina » Thu May 01, 2008 4:10 pm

.

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/ ... tprows.txt

Court Reverses Ruling In Parental Rights Case
Last updated Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:47 PM CDT in News
By The Morning News


LITTLE ROCK - A Searcy County circuit judge should have considered the mental health improvement of a parent before ending her child custody rights, the state Court of Appeals said Wednesday.

The appeals court reversed the lower court decision and ordered another hearing in the case of Claudia Prows, whose 5-month-old daughter was removed from her custody by the state Department of Human Services because of Prows' state of mind and for the safety of the child.

After a judge ruled the child was dependent-neglected, Prows was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.

Prows continued to have difficulties - including not taking her medication - and visits with her child received mixed reviews from department officials, who later filed a petition to terminate her parental rights.

Prows' doctor later corrected her medication and she began regular therapy. During the next six months, her mental state improved, the court of appeals said.

During a hearing in 2007, Prows' doctor testified that she was not quite ready to be a full-time parent again, but she had made a great deal of improvement in six months. He concluded she would be ready for unsupervised visits with her child in three to six months.



Circuit Judge Rhonda Wood later terminated Prows' parental rights, saying the child had been out of Prows' custody for 12 months and that despite her rehabilitation and condition, the reasons for the child's removal from her home had not been corrected.

Prows appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not considering her recent mental stability.

The Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that state statutes did not prohibit the judge from considering the mother's current mental condition.

"We recognize that evidence of parental improvement as termination becomes imminent will not outweigh other evidence demonstrating a failure to remedy the situation that caused the child to be removed in the first place. But, the circuit court should have considered and weighed the evidence about (the mother's) recent improvements," wrote Judge D.P. Marshall in the unanimous decision.

.

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

Postby Marina » Thu May 01, 2008 5:53 pm

.

.

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Conte ... ioID=18519

Chicago Attorney Wants Supreme Court to Hear Case on Parents' Rights

Produced by Tony Arnold on Thursday, February 14, 2008


A Chicago attorney wants to take her long-standing fight against the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to the U.S. Supreme Court. Diane Redleaf says DCFS has treated parents unfairly when investigating cases of suspected child neglect or abuse. She filed a petition with the Supreme Court yesterday.

Redleaf says when DCFS suspects abuse in a family, it often gives the adults only two choices: either the suspected abuser must leave the house or the kids will be taken into temporary foster care.

REDLEAF: They can't present those options without having evidence. They need actual evidence before they tell a parent that those are their options.

Redleaf says such options amount to threats and are a violation of parents' rights. Last year, a federal court of appeals in Chicago ruled against Redleaf. The state child welfare agency would not comment on Redleaf's filing with the Supreme Court.



.

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

Postby Marina » Sun May 11, 2008 11:57 am

.

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2008/02 ... news11.txt

Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:49 AM CST
Court Reverses Termination Of Parental Rights

By John Lyon
Arkansas News Bureau • [email protected]

LITTLE ROCK — A Craighead County circuit judge erred when he granted a motion by the Arkansas Department of Human Services to terminate the parental rights of a man who had been imprisoned since before his son was born, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision reversed a ruling that terminated Troy Lindemood’s rights to his son, identified in court papers as C.S., who was born Aug. 30, 2006.

Lindemood was in prison in Ohio from January 2006 to September of last year. Circuit Judge Larry Boling entered the order to end Lindemood’s parental rights at a hearing on July 12. Boling also ended the parental rights of the boy’s mother, and the state Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in October.

Because Lindemood was in prison and unable to attend the July hearing, his attorney moved for the hearing to be postponed, arguing his client was less than two months away from being released.

Boling denied the motion.

Officials with DHS claimed Lindemood’s son had been subjected to “aggravated circumstances.” The boy was placed in state custody on Sept. 1, 2006, when he was 2 days old, after both he and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine.

The Court of Appeals reversed Boling’s ruling with respect to Lindemood only, finding that DHS provided no evidence that Lindemood did anything to harm his son.

Lindemood “was not responsible for the mother’s using illegal drugs during her pregnancy or for drugs being in C.S.’s system when he was born,” Judge John Robbins wrote for the court.

“Nor can we say that Lindemood abandoned C.S., because Lindemood, from the time he learned of C.S.’s birth, has consistently expressed his desire that he be allowed to establish his paternity and be a parent to C.S.,” Robbins continued.

DHS also claimed there was little likelihood that providing services to the family would result in successful reunification of the family, but “there is no evidence that DHS tried to determine what services Lindemood might need in order to gain custody of C.S.,” Robbins wrote.

In some cases parental rights may be terminated because of the incarceration of a parent, but Lindemood’s incarceration was not so substantial as to preclude all attempts to reunite him with his son, the Court of Appeals ruled.

.

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

Postby Marina » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:55 pm

.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/article ... 14474d.txt

Court strikes down portion of child welfare law

By Nick Hytrek Journal staff writer

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday ruled a portion of the state's Indian Child Welfare Act unconstitutional, saying that it violated parents' substantive due process.

The court said that the state's law infringed upon a Sioux City mother's parental rights to choose her child's adoptive parents. The ruling leaves the bulk of the Iowa ICWA in place, addressing only a section that the court said placed too high a burden on parents wishing to deviate from the law's child placement preferences.

"While providing additional rights to the tribe is the prerogative of the state, those rights may not come at the expense of the parent's or child's rights," the court wrote in its 20-page ruling.

The court returned the case to Woodbury County and directed the district court to consider whether the mother can deviate from placement preferences under federal ICWA placement rules.

The federal Indian Child Welfare Act gives family members and American Indians preferred status in the placement of American Indian children in foster care or adoptive homes. Iowa's ICWA also requires tribes to be notified of all hearings in such cases.

The mother, an enrolled member of the Tyme Maidu Tribe of the Berry Creek Rancheria in California, gave the child up for adoption in 2006 and chose an Arizona couple as the adoptive parents.

The tribe challenged numerous Woodbury County Juvenile Court rulings, saying the court did not follow ICWA requirements during parental rights termination proceedings. The tribe's main argument was that it should have been given notice before custody of the infant was transferred from the mother so that the tribe could assert its right to preferred placement under Iowa law.

Courts in other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court said, have found good cause under federal law to deviate from placement preferences where the parent sought to place her child with a non-American Indian family. Under Iowa's ICWA, a parent's request is not sufficient to deviate from the preferred placements.

"The state has no right to influence her decision by preventing her from choosing a family she feels is best suited to raise her child," the court wrote.

Attorneys representing the tribe and the mother declined to comment because the case is still pending. The child continues to live with the prospective adoptive parents.

To read the full opinion, go the Iowa Judicial Branch Web site at www.judicial.state.ia.us/ and click on "Supreme Court Most Recent Opinions."

.

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

Postby Marina » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:10 pm

.

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.p ... &Itemid=29

The battle over ‘Frankie’ ends

Written by Administrator
Thursday, 26 June 2008

Ingham County Circuit Judge George Economy has ruled to terminate custody after the most recent of five bids over the last 7 1/2 years to sever the parental rights of an allegedly abusive mother.


The case of “Frankie,” a now 8-year-old boy who has spent much of his life in foster care, has broiled since he was just 18 months old. A fifth petition to terminate custody was filed in August after an incident where the mother struck the boy and swore at him, according to a police officer who overheard the incident.


The mother has filed an appeal to win back custody of Frankie (not his real name), the youngest of eight children, all of whom have now been taken away from her.


In his ruling, Economy points out that there is a “catch 22.” He acknowledges that there are problems with the mother’s parenting abilities and that Frankie has his own behavioral problems. But solutions put forth by experts to keep Frankie and his mother together don’t appear to be available. For example, Laurence Forrest, a Grand Rapids psychologist, says that Frankie and his mother need a “proctor” to aid the mother in parenting; Vaughan Vowels, a counselor who has worked with the mother and Frankie, suggested a program that offers a supervised living situation on a hospital campus.


In the end, Economy rested on state statute, given the mother’s prior history with her parental rights being terminated, whether staying with his mother would be in Frankie’s best interest, and the limited outside help available to the pair.


“This child has been in foster care for the majority of his life, having spent only two years of his life with his mother and seven years in foster care,” Economy writes in his June 9 decision. “The evidence is clear that this mother cannot parent this child by herself as indicated by all the professionals. … This child clearly needs stability. A stability (the mother) cannot provide.”


During hearings over the last few months, experts have argued both for and against terminating custody. Some experts acknowledge that Frankie and his mother have a strong bond and should stay together, but others say that the mother is abusive, deeming their relationship unhealthy.


“It was exceptionally gut wrenching and difficult,” Economy said in a telephone interview after his ruling. “I don’t know if there is one single solution.”


Economy said that over the last 7 1/2 years, his goal was always the best interest of Frankie, with keeping mother and son together paramount.


In those 7 1/2 years, Economy has received criticism for his handling of the case. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed one of the judge’s rulings in the case. In the January 2005 reversal, the appeals court found that Judge Economy “clearly erred in failing to address the best interests of the child.”


In 2003, the State Court Administrative Office told Economy to discontinue the practice of “taking a matter under advisement” in child protective cases after the office found no legal justification for it.


When asked last September about the Appeals Court reversal, Economy said he’s been a judge for 23 years and has only had one or two reversals, so that’s “a good track record.”


Frankie’s aunt, Angela Symonds, said that the boy was taken from her home, where he had been staying during the most recent trial, June 11. Symonds said she doesn’t know where Frankie is, only that he’s in state custody.


Stephanie Hirchert-Walton, a former foster care worker who oversaw the cases of the mother’s other seven children, brought Frankie’s story to City Pulse last summer. Hirchert-Walton alleges wrongdoing on Economy’s part for not terminating custody sooner, keeping Frankie swimming in a problematic foster care system. Economy should have terminated custody after the first petition was filed when the he was 18 months old, after being found by police in the care of a man they were arresting for assault, Hirchert-Walton contends.


“I guess I was surprised that (Economy) terminated custody,” Hirchert-Walton said. “I feel badly for both this child and this parent as well as all the people involved because it took 7 1/2 years.”


.

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

Postby Marina » Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:16 pm

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/27750004.html

Parental-rights cases: Who should pay?
A state board hammered by a $3.8 million shortfall has shifted the responsibility to counties to pay for lawyers for poor adults who are losing parental rights.

By JOY POWELL, Star Tribune

Last update: September 1, 2008 - 9:58 PM


If you are a low-income parent and your child is being taken away, you used to be able to get a state public defender to represent you.

Not anymore.

The State Board of Public Defense, battered by a $3.8 million shortfall, has shifted the responsibility to counties to pay for lawyers for poor adults who are losing parental rights or are otherwise involved in cases where children need help, commonly known as CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) cases.

The counties are expected to pick up this new local tab that could total $9 million to $11 million in 2009, said Jim Mulder, executive director of the Association of Minnesota Counties.

But there's no guarantee that all counties will do so.

"It's basically up to county boards as to whether or not they want to pick up the tab, so to speak, or not have representation for those parents," said Nancy Schouweiler, chair of the Dakota County Board. "As I understand it, there are some counties that are not willing to pick up the tab."

This year, state budget cuts led to the loss of 72 public-defender jobs statewide out of 440. That triggered the decision, as of July 8, to no longer provide public defenders for parents involved in child-protection cases, said John Stuart, the state's top public defender.

That decision came amid cuts across the criminal justice system, where courts face a $19 million shortfall and the corrections department is short $10 million. Some courthouses are closing service windows one day a week.

Mulder said Minnesota counties will ask the Legislature to change the law next year so that the state would once again pay for indigent adults' public defenders in child-protection cases.

But another multibillion-dollar state budget deficit is likely in the next two years, Stuart noted. "I'm not optimistic that the state is going to find millions and millions of dollars to put into providing lawyers in CHIPS cases."

Stuart said the situation underscores a longstanding need for counties to better screen which CHIPS cases get filed and find out-of-court alternatives, such as mediation, as Olmsted County has pioneered. But he conceded that a few kids could fall through the cracks.

Some counties are mulling whether to file appeals over the issue. Others are paying under protest.

Dakota County has set aside $75,000 to cover the cost of cases for the rest of this year and for 2009. Schouweiler hopes that will be enough.

The Ramsey County Board is considering allocating $125,000 to pay for the services in 2009.

"The amount has not been approved by the County Board, but we are hoping that it will be approved," said Larry Dease, district court administrator.

Hennepin County is an exception. Because it has so many cases, it's been paying at the start of each year for its public-defender services and now will not face the problem of public defenders withdrawing from CHIPS cases. Other counties, from St. Louis to Rock, are beginning to pay case-by-case. Nobody knows how much that will total for the rest of this year, but Mulder estimates $1 million to $2 million.

Stuart said parents should be represented in child-protection cases, but they do not have the constitutional right to a public defender that's afforded to the kids involved or to indigent defendants in criminal cases. He said his organization, together with the counties, has asked the Legislature for funding since 2002.

"We haven't been able to get any money," Stuart said. "It's unfortunate, and I feel bad that this is causing difficulty in local government, because I know local government is stressed. But we have a certain job to do under the Constitution of representing people who are charged with a crime."

Mulder said the authority should not be vested back to the counties. "There is a constitutional responsibility for the state to fund the court system, and provide an adequate judicial system," he said. "We would argue that the state has not fulfilled its responsibility to fund either the Board of Public Defense or the court system."

Statewide, county court officials are trying to appoint local attorneys to represent parents in child-protection cases.

A district judge could order a county to pay those costs. A county could appeal that order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Mulder said his association would then file a "friend of the court" brief.

They would argue that Minnesota law has two conflicting statutes governing whether the Board of Public Defense should pay, and clarity is needed, Mulder said. Mulder also contends that the Public Defense Board does not have authority to stop funding the positions.

Counties would argue that having a county pay for both the prosecutor and the public defender could create conflicts of interest, Mulder said.

But Stuart said state law is clear: The counties must pay.

Shifting tax burden

Mulder said the state cuts shift the pocket from which taxpayers must pay. Rather than money for needed services coming from state income and sales taxes, it will come from "highly regressive" county property taxes, he said.

"The way we are governing, and the relationship between the state and counties, is not sustainable," Mulder said.

He pointed to cuts in state funding for short-term offenders from $30 a day to less than $10. Yet costs range from $60 to more than $100 a day. That reduction, coupled with cuts in public defenders for CHIPS cases, could boost county property taxes by $10 million to $15 million in 2009, Mulder said.

Counties had once been responsible for all costs in the courts, except judges. In 1993, the state took over paying all court costs, except capital expenditures. The counties gave up monies from the state to do that, Mulder said.

"When the state took over the court system, there was an agreement as to who was supposed to pay for what -- and the public defenders are supposed to be paid for by the state," Schouweiler said.

The counties' association now has a resolution calling for state public defenders for parents in CHIPS cases. And Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer is heading a new task force to figure out how to provide legal representation for parents in CHIPS cases.

"We could have legislation that would require the state to pay for it," Schouweiler said. "But I'm not holding my breath for that, considering there's such a huge deficit expected."

page 2

Stuart said the situation underscores a longstanding need for counties to better screen which CHIPS cases get filed and find out-of-court alternatives, such as mediation, as Olmsted County has pioneered. But he conceded that a few kids could fall through the cracks.

Some counties are mulling whether to file appeals over the issue. Others are paying under protest.

Dakota County has set aside $75,000 to cover the cost of cases for the rest of this year and for 2009. Schouweiler hopes that will be enough.

The Ramsey County Board is considering allocating $125,000 to pay for the services in 2009.

"The amount has not been approved by the County Board, but we are hoping that it will be approved," said Larry Dease, district court administrator.

Hennepin County is an exception. Because it has so many cases, it's been paying at the start of each year for its public-defender services and now will not face the problem of public defenders withdrawing from CHIPS cases. Other counties, from St. Louis to Rock, are beginning to pay case-by-case. Nobody knows how much that will total for the rest of this year, but Mulder estimates $1 million to $2 million.

Stuart said parents should be represented in child-protection cases, but they do not have the constitutional right to a public defender that's afforded to the kids involved or to indigent defendants in criminal cases. He said his organization, together with the counties, has asked the Legislature for funding since 2002.

"We haven't been able to get any money," Stuart said. "It's unfortunate, and I feel bad that this is causing difficulty in local government, because I know local government is stressed. But we have a certain job to do under the Constitution of representing people who are charged with a crime."

Mulder said the authority should not be vested back to the counties. "There is a constitutional responsibility for the state to fund the court system, and provide an adequate judicial system," he said. "We would argue that the state has not fulfilled its responsibility to fund either the Board of Public Defense or the court system."

Statewide, county court officials are trying to appoint local attorneys to represent parents in child-protection cases.

A district judge could order a county to pay those costs. A county could appeal that order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Mulder said his association would then file a "friend of the court" brief.

They would argue that Minnesota law has two conflicting statutes governing whether the Board of Public Defense should pay, and clarity is needed, Mulder said. Mulder also contends that the Public Defense Board does not have authority to stop funding the positions.

Counties would argue that having a county pay for both the prosecutor and the public defender could create conflicts of interest, Mulder said.

But Stuart said state law is clear: The counties must pay.

Shifting tax burden

Mulder said the state cuts shift the pocket from which taxpayers must pay. Rather than money for needed services coming from state income and sales taxes, it will come from "highly regressive" county property taxes, he said.

"The way we are governing, and the relationship between the state and counties, is not sustainable," Mulder said.

He pointed to cuts in state funding for short-term offenders from $30 a day to less than $10. Yet costs range from $60 to more than $100 a day. That reduction, coupled with cuts in public defenders for CHIPS cases, could boost county property taxes by $10 million to $15 million in 2009, Mulder said.

Counties had once been responsible for all costs in the courts, except judges. In 1993, the state took over paying all court costs, except capital expenditures. The counties gave up monies from the state to do that, Mulder said.

"When the state took over the court system, there was an agreement as to who was supposed to pay for what -- and the public defenders are supposed to be paid for by the state," Schouweiler said.

The counties' association now has a resolution calling for state public defenders for parents in CHIPS cases. And Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer is heading a new task force to figure out how to provide legal representation for parents in CHIPS cases.

"We could have legislation that would require the state to pay for it," Schouweiler said. "But I'm not holding my breath for that, considering there's such a huge deficit expected."

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

Postby Marina » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:00 pm

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/935289.html

Posted on Fri, Sep. 26, 2008print email Digg it del.icio.us AIM
Police interview of Keller schoolgirl shows limits of parental rights

By KATE GORMAN [email protected]



KELLER — School district and police officials are taking steps to make sure their policies are followed after a detective went to a middle school this month and interviewed a 12-year-old girl about sex abuse without her parents or campus administrators knowing.

The girl’s mother, Kristen Signorelli, has had a series of meetings with school and police officials since her daughter was taken out of class and interviewed alone by a male detective. Signorelli said she is satisfied with officials’ response, but the experience has been a rude awakening to the limits of parental rights.

Although all sides agree that Signorelli should have been notified because of local policies, Texas law doesn’t require police to consult parents in investigations that involve their children.

"Parents need to be aware that that is the way that it is," Signorelli said. "I think most of us assume that there would be some protection in place."

On Sept. 10, a Keller detective went to the front office at Indian Springs Middle School and asked to talk to Signorelli’s daughter, who he believed might be a victim or a witness in the sexual-abuse investigation of a neighbor.

Keller Police Department policy requires investigators to contact the principal or assistant principal when they want to do an interview at school. School district regulations require the principal to "make reasonable efforts" to notify parents about an interview and to make sure that a school official observes the interview unless police provide a valid objection.

The detective, Tom Barnett, a department veteran who has handled many child-sex-abuse cases, assumed that the school employee would notify the principal that he was there, Police Chief Mark Hafner said. But the employee was new to the job and unaware of the policies, officials said.

"In cases like this, there was no intent on either side — on the Keller Independent School District or the Police Department — to ever hide anything," Hafner said. "Our investigator called up the family that evening and told them about the investigation."

Hafner said the department has revised its practices to require an investigator and his or her supervisor to contact an administrator directly.

"The problem wasn’t the policy; the problem was our operating procedure," Hafner said. "We’re going to put safeguards into place to make sure the policy is followed."

School administrators acknowledged the slip-up and apologized to Signorelli. The school employee has since been told about the appropriate steps to take, officials said.

"I think it would be difficult for that situation to happen again," said Charles Carroll, the district’s executive director of intermediate and middle school administration. "Not following [procedure] is not acceptable."

Lack of rights

Signorelli said she believes that the new measures are enough to make sure parents are notified in the future, but she still can’t believe that parental rights aren’t better protected under the law.

Most school districts in Tarrant County have parental notification directives similar to Keller’s, but the county’s larger police departments — Arlington, Fort Worth and North Richland Hills — don’t address the issue in writing, officials said.

"It is a courtesy to allow the parent or guardian to know that the interview will or did take place, and we encourage parent involvement," said Lt. Paul Henderson, a Fort Worth police spokesman. "But there’s not a policy on requiring parents or guardians to either be notified before or during the interview — or to be present."

Signorelli said that if the police or the school had contacted her, she would have consented to an interview and asked that a female, preferably someone her daughter was familiar with, be present.

"I understand with cases like that, they have to do the investigation," Signorelli said. "But something needs to be changed so that a male detective cannot take a little girl in a room alone for that line of questioning."

She said her daughter was ruled out as a victim or witness in the case Barnett was investigating.

Parents have little say in police investigations, authorities said. Sometimes, especially in sexual-abuse investigations, parents are even seen as a hindrance. Hafner said the Keller detective, who is trained in interviewing children in sex-abuse cases, went to the school because another possible victim in the case indicated that Signorelli might not be cooperative.

That doesn’t sit well with some. Charles Youngblood ran unsuccessfully for the Keller school board last year after his sons were detained and questioned at their high school when someone made a false report that one of them brought a gun to school.

"I talked to the Police Department on several occasions, and they have this idea that professionalism is just going by the book," Youngblood said. "To me, part of their responsibility is communication with the community and being able to establish good rapport."

Youngblood said school and police officials should make greater efforts to include parents in dealings with children.

"Do you want to live in a community where you’re not seen as a partner?" he said.


We’re going to put safeguards into place to make sure the policy is followed."

Mark Hafner,
Keller police chief

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

Postby Marina » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:21 pm

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/ ... tparen.txt

Court Reverses Termination Of Drew County Woman's Parental Rights

Last updated Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:45 PM CDT in News
By John Lyon
THE MORNING NEWS


LITTLE ROCK -- A circuit judge erred when she terminated the parental rights of a Drew County woman primarily because the woman moved several times, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The appeals court reversed an order terminating Rebecca Gail Strickland's rights with respect to her 3-year-old and 5-year-old children.

A judge granted emergency custody of Strickland's children to the Department of Human Services in February 2006, after a DHS worker said in an affidavit that one of the children was not regularly attending a day care program prescribed by his doctor.

When the child did attend day care he arrived in a vehicle with no child seats, was in need of a bath and was accompanied by a cousin who smelled of alcohol, the DHS worker said.

At a December 2007 hearing, family service worker Jennifer Harper testified that Strickland had completed parenting classes but had not acquired stable transportation, was not employed and had not maintained stable housing for a year.

Harper acknowledged the plan did not require Strickland to own a vehicle and that relying on others for transportation did not necessarily endanger the children. She also acknowledged Strickland was disabled and was receiving $623 a month in disability payments.


But Harper said the fact that Strickland had moved eight times since February 2006 showed she had not maintained stable housing. Circuit Judge Teresa French agreed and terminated Strickland's parental rights.

In its opinion Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said Strickland had demonstrated devotion to her children, and the fact that she moved several times was not enough to justify termination of her parental rights.

"DHS cites the moves as evidence of an unusually peripatetic or unstable personality, but there are logical explanations for many of the moves," Judge Wendell Griffen wrote.

The Court of Appeals ordered the circuit court to conduct a new hearing and either return the children to Strickland's custody or continue reunification services.

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

Postby Marina » Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:48 pm

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/ ... rtcust.txt

DHS Scolded For Handling Of Parental Rights

Last updated Wednesday, October 8, 2008 9:43 PM CDT in News
By Rob Moritz
THE MORNING NEWS

LITTLE ROCK -- The state Court of Appeals ordered a new hearing Wednesday in a Crawford County court decision to terminate a man's parental rights and scolded the state Department of Human Services for its handling of the case.

"It is troubling enough whenever a child has been neglected by a parent," the court said in the ruling. "Here, the governmental agency responsible for helping stabilize the family by providing support services to the child and parent refused to even involve the (father) until it sought to terminate his parental rights, and never included (the father) in any plan concerning his daughters care."

"We expect that the refusal by DHS to perform its duties and the manifestly invalid reason for that nonperformance will be rectified on remand," Judge Wendell Griffen wrote.

A DHS spokeswoman said the agency would ask the appeals court to reconsider its ruling and that if the court declined, DHS would petition the state Supreme Court to review the case.

"We feel like we had a sound case for terminating the parental rights and trying to find this child a forever family, or adoptive family," spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. "Obviously we disagree with the decision and do feel like the department made ample efforts to identify the putative father in this case, to also work with putative father once we knew who he was and made numerous attempts to at least involve the putative father."

The case involved a baby girl born to a teenage girl in 2003. The father was married to another woman when the child was born.


In April 2005, the Crawford County sheriff took the mother and child into custody because the mother was a runaway and was a juvenile in a dependency-neglect case. DHS was later granted emergency custody of the child and the custody order at that time listed the child's father as unknown.

The father later filed for custody of the child and Crawford County Circuit Judge Michael Medlock terminated his parental rights to the child earlier this year.

The father argued in his appeal that DHS failed to join him as a party until it moved to terminate his parental rights, and that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the termination.

He argued he visited the DHS office in 2005 claiming he was the child's biological father. The child's teenage mother identified him as the father, according to the appeals court.

The father in 2006 again expressed interest in the child and received background information forms, the court opinion said.

DHS, despite nothing in the record suggesting his paternity was in question, did not make him a party in the case. Consequently, he was not provided with services or named a defendant in any review and planning orders entered from mid-2005 to early 2007, according to the appeals court.

In its unanimous ruling reversing the circuit court decision, the Court of Appeals said it was DHS duty to involve the father in the case.

"Arkansas law is explicit about the duty of (DHS) to provide services to families when instances of dependency and neglect arise," the court said. "To put it bluntly, it is fundamentally unfair for a parent or putative parent to be denied legal participating in a proceeding that involves his son. The only thing more unfair would be to terminate parental rights without such notice and opportunity to participate, as occurred in this case."

The court also said DHS argued incorrectly that the father was required to prove paternity before he could participate in the case.

"That argument is directly refuted by the plain language of (Arkansas Code), which requires that parents and putative parents be named as defendants and afforded legal notice in dependency-neglect proceedings," the court said.

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

Postby Marina » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:06 am

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/200 ... 527599.txt

High court: So-so parents win over good grandparents

By NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star
Saturday, Oct 18, 2008 - 05:28:15 pm CDT
Parental rights win out, even if the children's best interest might best be served by other guardians, according to a Nebraska Supreme Court decision reaffirming the constitutional right of parents.

The high court overturned a Perkins County District Court decision that two children should remain with grandparents who had been raising them for several years.

The Supreme Court gave custody of the two boys to the father, Thomas D. Farnsworth, because the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.



“Under the parental preference principle, a parent's natural right to the custody of his or her children trumps the interest of strangers to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child," the high court said in a unanimous decision released Friday.

Maternal grandparents of the boys, Karla and Tim McQueen, had custody of the children under a 2006 divorce decree and had taken care of the children periodically before that, according to the facts presented in the opinion.

After the death of the children's mother in January 2007, Farnsworth asked the court for custody.

The attorney representing the children recommended they stay with the McQueens because the grandparents provided the structure necessary for the boys to do well in school.

The father had held 21 jobs in 14 years, and the house he and the children would live in was owned by his girlfriend, according to the court opinion.

District Court Judge Donald E. Rowlands left custody with the grandparents after determining that this arrangement would be in the children's best interest.

Rowlands did not determine that Farnsworth was an unfit parent and recommended increased visitation with the boys. Farnsworth had demonstrated he loved his children and had consistently exercised his visitation rights since the divorce, the lower court determined.

The Supreme Court gave custody to the father, saying that the courts may not deprive a parent of custody of a minor child “unless it is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties.”

In fact, the “right of a parent to the care, custody and management of his or her children is considered one of the most basic rights of man," according to the opinion.

“While there are facts that indicate the boys might have more stability if they remain with the McQueens, such a finding alone is not enough to overcome the superior rights of a biological parent,” the court wrote.

The fact that someone other than a parent may be able to provide greater or better financial care or assistance for a child than a parent is not sufficient basis to deprive a parent of the right to child custody, the court said.

“ … The best interests standard, taken to its logical conclusion, would place the minor children of all but the 'worthiest members of society in jeopardy of a custody challenge,’" Chief Justice Michael Heavican wrote, quoting an earlier case.

In the real world, these are hard cases, said Lincoln attorney Mark Krieger. The parents’ rights supercede, he said.

And grandparents get no preferential treatment. The fact that grandparents have been the guardians has no more weight than if it is foster parents, he said.

These kinds of cases happen frequently today, situations where a child is left with grandparents for years, he said.

For example, a parent may beat a drug habit or get out of prison, return and want the children, he said.

“It is heart wrenching for the grandparents," he said.

The Supreme Court decision mentioned several previous cases in which parents had left children in the care of relatives and had instituted a formal guardianship.

In each case, the mother later sought to terminate the guardianship and regain custody.

The court applied the parental preference principle in those cases, according to the decision.

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

Postby Marina » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:00 pm

http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_10788555

Cast vote for parental rights
By Russ Neal
Article Launched: 10/23/2008 01:00:00 AM PDT


I find it amazing that there is the need to write about this subject at all. Proposition 4 ensures our rights as parents to know about surgical and/or chemical procedures that third parties wish to perform on our children. What I find amazing is that some people object to parents knowing this information. They want to keep parents in the dark because ... well, I really don't know why.
I know some people who are parents of daughters, and yet they are against requiring notification to parents. I'm betting if their minor child underwent a procedure like abortion without their knowledge or consent, they would be upset. I'm betting if their minor child underwent a procedure like abortion without their knowledge or consent and was permanently injured during the operation, they would be upset. I'm betting if their minor child underwent a procedure like abortion without their knowledge or consent and died as a result, they would be more than upset.

And yet they will vote against Proposition 4. This, I don't understand.

Let's look at the proposition and see what it says - without all the exaggerations and distortions. The measure requires, with certain exceptions (see below), that physicians notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor child. It won't apply if the child is validly married, is on active duty in the military, or is legally emancipated.

So what about a medical emergency in which the



child's life is in danger unless a therapeutic abortion is performed? No notification is required. What about abusive or incestuous parents or other adult family members? Would the doctor have to notify them? Of course not. What about parents or other adult members of the family who the young mother says would likely inflict emotional abuse on her? Again, no parental notification is required.
The doctor would have to notify some responsible adult in the family-someone who the expectant mother would trust. Family notification laws like Prop 4. have been on the books in a majority of states for years without a single documented instance of harm coming to a child as a result.

What if the minor child was mature and well-informed enough to make this momentous decision on her own? Or what if it were in the minor's best interest that no one in the family be notified? In these cases, the minor could ask a juvenile court to waive the notification requirement. She would not be responsible for court costs, assistance or attorney's fees. Denials of waivers could be appealed to an appellate court.

Additionally, the measure provides protection for the child by requiring the courts to report medical evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse to the appropriate law enforcement or child protection agency. Abortion providers, protected by this veil of secrecy they currently enjoy, often neglect to do this, which means the minor children often are returned to abusive situations.

Young girls are sometimes coerced into getting abortions by the older men who impregnate them. In one study of 46,000 school-age pregnancies, over two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by men whose average age was 22.6 years. What parent in his or her right mind could possibly object to this measure? What parent is his or her right mind could possibly want to be kept in the dark over such an important decision in the life of his or her daughter?

We insist, as parents, on knowing if the school is giving our child an aspirin. Under law, cavities cannot be filled without our knowledge and consent. Young girls cannot even get a tan in a tanning salon until they're 18. But the pro-choice people want to make sure these children can have secret abortions.

We care, as parents, about our daughters' well-being and safety. We do not want them to endure what "Sarah" endured. In 1994, 15-year-old "Sarah" visited an abortion clinic in Houston, Texas. An abortion was performed on the young girl, after which she suffered blood poisoning, fever, chills, abdominal pain, and nausea.

Her parents weren't notified that their daughter had had an abortion and didn't know what was wrong with her. When hospital personnel discovered a post-abortion infection, they placed Sarah in the intensive care unit, but the infection was far too advanced. Sarah died.

I can hear my opponents calling this a "scare tactic." It is. You should be scared when the government is sanctioning secret medical procedures on your daughter. If you're not, there's something seriously wrong with you. Vote "YES" on Proposition 4.

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

Postby Marina » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:36 pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/391 ... source=rss

Last updated December 12, 2008 9:31 a.m. PT

Oregon judge orders state to bail out rape suspect
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OREGON CITY, Ore. -- A Clackamas County judge has ordered the Oregon Department of Human Services to bail a rape suspect out of jail so he can help plan care for his junior-high age son.

Judge Deanne Darling's order, obtained by The Oregonian newspaper, directs "DHS to post bail or otherwise assist father in being freed from jail."

The order does not say why Darling believes Russell Hamblen must be let out of the county jail to participate in planning discussions. Clackamas County has a closed-circuit television system and the sheriff's office often takes inmates to court hearings without releasing them from custody.

State attorneys will ask the judge next week to reverse her decision.

Department of Human Services officials say the agency lacks the authority to post Hamblen's bail, which is set at $500,000. "It wouldn't be an appropriate use of funds even if we did," said Gene Evans, an agency spokesman.

Hamblen, 50, and another son, Paul Hamblen, 19, were arrested in April on accusations they provided alcohol to teenage girls and forced them to have sex. The son pleaded guilty to multiple sex crimes and was sentenced to five years in prison. The father's trial is scheduled for January.

Hamblen's 13-year-old son is in foster care because his mother, Christine Hamblen, has issues with substance abuse, according to the court order. She pleaded guilty to drunken driving last week.

Family law attorneys said they have never heard of a judge ordering the state to bail out an inmate. But, they note, juvenile court records are confidential and the judge may have access to information that makes the decision an appropriate one.

Julia M. Hagan, a Portland attorney, said juvenile court judges are required to follow policies intended to reunite children with their parents, or find suitable long-term care. Parents, even those in legal trouble, have a legal right to participate in those decisions.

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

Postby Marina » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:44 pm

http://www.2news.tv/news/local/36882614.html

Judge: Sex offender's no-contact order goes too far


YouNews™Story Created: Dec 30, 2008 at 10:05 AM MST

Story Updated: Dec 30, 2008 at 1:47 PM MST

By Associated Press BOISE (AP) — The Idaho Court of Appeals has overturned a district court order banning a convicted sex offender from being within 100 feet of any minor, including his two young children.

The case marked the first time the appeals court had ruled on whether a no-contact order violated a right to parent.

The ruling last week held that the order imposed on Brian C. Cobler went too far, violating his parental rights. The order also prevented Cobler from contacting his children by letters, phone calls and e-mails.

The appeals court ruled that Cobler was not a danger to his children and that preventing him from communicating with them did not "accomplish the essential needs of the state," the Spokesman-Review reported.

Cobler was arrested in 2006 and convicted of having a three-month sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. He was sentenced to serve two to 10 years in prison, and remains incarcerated.

He and his wife have two children, a boy and a girl, who were under age 6 at the time of the 2006 arrest.

"There was no indication in the psychosexual evaluation that Cobler would prey upon any of his children, nor that communication with their father would be harmful to them," appellate Chief Judge Sergio Gutierrez wrote in the unanimous decision. "Without such a determination, denying Cobler all parental rights oversteps the authority of the state."

The appeals court, with no precedents within the state, turned to Washington state and the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, who had sex with a 12-year-old boy she met at a Seattle-area school.

She was arrested in 1997, pleaded guilty to second-degree child rape and was sentenced to 7½ years in prison, with all but six months suspended.

Within weeks of her release, she was caught having sex with the boy in her car and ordered to serve the remainder of her sentence. Letourneau was released in 2004, and the couple were married in 2005 when she was 43 and he was 22.

The Washington courts ruled that Letourneau could have contact with her children, including four from a previous marriage, because she posed no danger to the youngsters.

"We consider the standard adopted in Washington persuasive," Gutierrez wrote.

The court remanded the case back to Idaho's 4th District Court in Boise for a hearing on modifications to the no-contact order.

No decision has been made on whether the Idaho attorney general's office will appeal the decision, said spokesman Bob Cooper. The deadline to file that appeal is Jan. 13.

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

Postby Marina » Fri May 22, 2009 9:04 pm

http://www.sctimes.com/article/20090522 ... /-1/RSSTOP

Stearns County fails to reverse parental rights decision

By David Unze • [email protected] • May 22, 2009


ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Supreme Court Thursday denied a request from Stearns County to review a Court of Appeals decision in a controversial termination of parental rights case.



The denial means that Bich Nguyen and Anh Duong will not have their parental rights terminated to their son, David. The county tried to terminate their rights after their first son, Anthony, died in what was ruled a homicide. Police and prosecutors have said that Nguyen and Duong are the only suspects in Anthony’s death. That belief and medical examiner testimony about Anthony’s injuries were the basis for the county’s attempt to terminate Nguyen and Duong’s rights.

Stearns County District Court Judge Kris Davick-Halfen terminated the parental rights of Nguyen and Duong after a court trial. But the state Court of Appeals reversed her decision, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to terminate.

The attorney who represents the couple, Cynthia Vermeulen, said Thursday that she would seek the immediate transfer of David’s custody to Nguyen and Duong. Stearns County is reviewing its options and doesn’t plan to return David to his birth parents until the court file has been returned from the appellate court at the earliest, said Matt Engelking, head of the juvenile division in the Stearns County Attorney’s Office.

The case gained attention because of the rarity of a county trying to terminate parents’ rights to a child after an allegation of abuse that never led to criminal charges. Anthony Duong died in January 2001.

He had suffered a skull fracture, and his parents initially said he had fallen onto a carpeted floor while learning to walk. They later said a car crash in the weeks before Anthony’s death could have been a cause for his head injuries.

Medical testimony ruled both out as possible causes for the injuries Anthony had, and his death was ruled a homicide. Both parents acknowledged that they were the only caregivers to Anthony and that nobody else had been alone with Anthony in the weeks before his death.

(2 of 2)


Stearns County then filed a petition to terminate Nguyen and Duong’s rights to parent David, and the county removed David from his parents’ custody at St. Cloud Hospital just days after he was born.



Davick-Halfen’s order terminating their parental rights cited the egregious harm that Anthony Duong suffered, that one of the parents must have caused the harm and that a parent who might not have caused the injuries would have reasonably known Anthony had suffered the egregious harm.

Although the Court of Appeals reversed the termination, it upheld the essential findings of the trial court, that Anthony Duong was cared for exclusively by his parents, that he died from nonaccidental blunt force trauma to the head and that at least one of the parents caused Anthony’s death.

But there was no evidence indicating which parent inflicted the harm or whether both parents acted in concert, the Court of Appeals ruled. The terminations against the parents cannot stand without sufficient evidence that both knew or should have known about the egregious harm Anthony sustained, Court of Appeals Judge Louise Dovre Bjorkman wrote.


Return to “In the News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests