« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues opinion re contruction of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines | Main | Ind. Law - Still more stories today on legislative health care perks »

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues two

Robert Washington v. State of Indiana is a 28-page opinion on an appeal of a criminal conviction. Judge Robb writes the 25-page opinion affirming the convictions; Chief Judge Kirsch writes a 3-page opinion "concurring in result".

In Jerrell Seth Covington v. Marion County Office of Family & Children and Child Advocates, Judge Vaidik writes:

Jerrell Covington appeals the termination of his parental relationship with his biological son, S.M. He argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to S.M.’s removal would not be remedied or that (2) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to S.M.’s well-being. In response, the Marion County Office of Indiana Department of Child Services alleges that because Covington has taken no action to establish his paternity in this case, he lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s determination. Finding no clear error in the trial court’s determination that the conditions leading to S.M.’s removal are unlikely to be remedied, we affirm the termination of Covington’s rights. We do find, however, that a putative father has standing to challenge an adverse decision in an involuntary termination proceeding regardless of whether he has taken steps to establish his paternity.
Judge Mathias writes in a brief concurring opinion:
I write only to emphasize the core holding in this case regarding Covington’s standing as the putative father. That holding is that as a respondent in these involuntary termination proceedings, Covington clearly has basic constitutional standing to challenge the actions taken by the trial court. While Covington’s conduct in failing to attempt to establish paternity throughout these proceedings speaks volumes as to the correctness of the trial court’s termination of any parental rights he may have had, it cannot divest him of standing under the statutory termination framework enacted by our General Assembly.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 19, 2006 10:23 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions