Associated Press
ATLANTA — The right of grandparents to visit their grandchildren caught up in custody or divorce cases would be strengthened under a bill passed by Georgia lawmakers.
House lawmakers voted 154-0 on Wednesday to pass the bill sponsored by Republican Rep. John Meadows of Calhoun.
The bill seeks to increase the visitation rights of grandparents whose grandchildren are involved in cases involving child custody, divorce or the termination of parental rights. It would encourage judges to allow children to visit their grandparents when that grandparent has financially supported the child for a year or regularly visited with the child.
The bill would allow judges to rule that the child's interests would be harmed without some "minimal" contact with their grandparents. Those visits would total at least 24 hours in a month.
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label termination of parental rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label termination of parental rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Parental rights bill clears House - Utah
By David Montero
A bill designed to add more layers before a child can be removed from a home by the Division of Child and Family Services passed through the House Thursday 54-13.
Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said he believed there needed to be additional protections for parents who face losing their child and his measure, HB161, would require an interim committee to study and make findings on the division’s budget and whether they were unfairly removing children from homes.
In his proposal, he also wants parents to have the opportunity to seek a jury trial when faced with termination of parental rights as well as letting extended family intervene more easily before the division gets involved in removing a child.
Minority Leader David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, worried about the bill’s language — notably a line that suggested the Division of Child and Family Services used an artificial standard to yank kids out of the home.
That line of the bill said that a parent’s right is protected and “does not cease to exist simply because a parent may fail to be a model parent.”
Litvack said that was a dubious implication and wanted it removed from the bill.
“I think we’re leaving a wrong impression when we say whether a parent is behaving in a model way or not,” Litvack said. “This is about striking that fine balance between protecting parental rights but also ensuring the rights and safety of children are protected.”
His amendment failed, and Christensen asked the lawmakers “from the bottom of my heart” to pass the measure.
It now moves to the Senate.
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53627825-90/bill-child-rights-division.html.csp
A bill designed to add more layers before a child can be removed from a home by the Division of Child and Family Services passed through the House Thursday 54-13.
Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said he believed there needed to be additional protections for parents who face losing their child and his measure, HB161, would require an interim committee to study and make findings on the division’s budget and whether they were unfairly removing children from homes.
In his proposal, he also wants parents to have the opportunity to seek a jury trial when faced with termination of parental rights as well as letting extended family intervene more easily before the division gets involved in removing a child.
Minority Leader David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, worried about the bill’s language — notably a line that suggested the Division of Child and Family Services used an artificial standard to yank kids out of the home.
That line of the bill said that a parent’s right is protected and “does not cease to exist simply because a parent may fail to be a model parent.”
Litvack said that was a dubious implication and wanted it removed from the bill.
“I think we’re leaving a wrong impression when we say whether a parent is behaving in a model way or not,” Litvack said. “This is about striking that fine balance between protecting parental rights but also ensuring the rights and safety of children are protected.”
His amendment failed, and Christensen asked the lawmakers “from the bottom of my heart” to pass the measure.
It now moves to the Senate.
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53627825-90/bill-child-rights-division.html.csp
Saturday, January 28, 2012
C.A. Orders New Hearing on Rights of Mentally Impaired Parents
Panel Says Restrictions on Visitation Improperly Prevented Family Reunification
By KENNETH OFGANG
The developmentally disabled parents of two infants were denied reasonable reunification services when social workers unduly limited their visitation rights, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
Div. One granted a writ of mandate, directing that a referral for hearing on termination of parental rights be set aside and that the parents, identified only as Tracy J. and Michelle B., be given further services in order to reunify with their children, who are in foster care.
The opinion of the court was authored by Justice James McIntyre, who said that a social services agency “may not limit a developmentally disabled parent’s visitation in the absence of evidence showing the parent’s behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child’s safety, and it cannot impede the progression of visitation services to a parent solely out of concerns about the parent’s mental health status.”
Dependency Petition
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition concerning the couple’s son, identified as T.J., nine days after his birth in January 2010. They later filed a second petition regarding T.J.’s sister, Nancy J., born in May of last year.
The children were placed in foster care and the parents were given case plans, including counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, and assessments by the San Diego Regional Center, which offers services to the developmentally disabled.
Michelle B. claimed to suffer from Prader-Willi syndrome, a non-inherited genetic disorder characterized by obesity and cognitive impairment. Her arms, social workers noted, are short in proportion to her body, making it difficult for her to hold a child, although she can cope with everyday problems.
The regional center determined that she does not have Prader-Willi syndrome and is not mentally retarded, and does not qualify for services.
Mildly Retarded
Tracy B., who suffered a childhood head injury, tested in the lower range of mildly mentally retarded. A psychologist evaluated him and said that he would benefit from reunification services but his prognosis for reunification was poor.
Last July, the court held a combined 18-month review hearing for T.J. and a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Nancy. On the agency’s recommendation, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ana L. Espana terminated services as to T.J., whose foster mother expressed a desire to adopt him, set a hearing on termination of parental rights as to him, and ordered six months of services in Nancy’s case.
The order was appealed, only as to T.J. The Court of Appeal originally reversed last November, in an unpublished opinion, and made its order final immediately.
It subsequently received a request for publication, but because the order was final, it could not grant publication, but instead recommended the Supreme Court do so.
The Court of Appeal panel also asked the Supreme Court to send the case back for potential modification of the opinion. The high court granted review, set aside the original ruling, and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
The justices yesterday reversed again, in a published opinion not substantially different than last year’s.
‘Barely’ Sufficient Evidence
McIntyre said the trial judge’s order was unsupported by substantial evidence. While there was “barely” sufficient evidence to warrant having the children remain in foster care, he explained, it was clear that the limitations on visitation and the failure to provide the mother with services tailored to her physical disabilities rendered reunification services inadequate as a matter of law.
The social workers’ reports, he elaborated, showed that the parents were protective of the boy’s safety, yet the agency limited them to one supervised visit per week of three to four hours. Given that fact, the claim that they could not safely care for him was speculative.
“Despite their full cooperation with the Agency, positive reports from service professionals, their devotion to T.J. and the availability of significant support services through SDRC, Michelle and Tracy have not had a reasonable opportunity to show they are able to parent their child,” the justice wrote. “They are entitled to that opportunity.”
The case is Tracy J. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency), D060252.
Source http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/trac012712.htm
By KENNETH OFGANG
The developmentally disabled parents of two infants were denied reasonable reunification services when social workers unduly limited their visitation rights, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
Div. One granted a writ of mandate, directing that a referral for hearing on termination of parental rights be set aside and that the parents, identified only as Tracy J. and Michelle B., be given further services in order to reunify with their children, who are in foster care.
The opinion of the court was authored by Justice James McIntyre, who said that a social services agency “may not limit a developmentally disabled parent’s visitation in the absence of evidence showing the parent’s behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child’s safety, and it cannot impede the progression of visitation services to a parent solely out of concerns about the parent’s mental health status.”
Dependency Petition
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition concerning the couple’s son, identified as T.J., nine days after his birth in January 2010. They later filed a second petition regarding T.J.’s sister, Nancy J., born in May of last year.
The children were placed in foster care and the parents were given case plans, including counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, and assessments by the San Diego Regional Center, which offers services to the developmentally disabled.
Michelle B. claimed to suffer from Prader-Willi syndrome, a non-inherited genetic disorder characterized by obesity and cognitive impairment. Her arms, social workers noted, are short in proportion to her body, making it difficult for her to hold a child, although she can cope with everyday problems.
The regional center determined that she does not have Prader-Willi syndrome and is not mentally retarded, and does not qualify for services.
Mildly Retarded
Tracy B., who suffered a childhood head injury, tested in the lower range of mildly mentally retarded. A psychologist evaluated him and said that he would benefit from reunification services but his prognosis for reunification was poor.
Last July, the court held a combined 18-month review hearing for T.J. and a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Nancy. On the agency’s recommendation, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ana L. Espana terminated services as to T.J., whose foster mother expressed a desire to adopt him, set a hearing on termination of parental rights as to him, and ordered six months of services in Nancy’s case.
The order was appealed, only as to T.J. The Court of Appeal originally reversed last November, in an unpublished opinion, and made its order final immediately.
It subsequently received a request for publication, but because the order was final, it could not grant publication, but instead recommended the Supreme Court do so.
The Court of Appeal panel also asked the Supreme Court to send the case back for potential modification of the opinion. The high court granted review, set aside the original ruling, and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
The justices yesterday reversed again, in a published opinion not substantially different than last year’s.
‘Barely’ Sufficient Evidence
McIntyre said the trial judge’s order was unsupported by substantial evidence. While there was “barely” sufficient evidence to warrant having the children remain in foster care, he explained, it was clear that the limitations on visitation and the failure to provide the mother with services tailored to her physical disabilities rendered reunification services inadequate as a matter of law.
The social workers’ reports, he elaborated, showed that the parents were protective of the boy’s safety, yet the agency limited them to one supervised visit per week of three to four hours. Given that fact, the claim that they could not safely care for him was speculative.
“Despite their full cooperation with the Agency, positive reports from service professionals, their devotion to T.J. and the availability of significant support services through SDRC, Michelle and Tracy have not had a reasonable opportunity to show they are able to parent their child,” the justice wrote. “They are entitled to that opportunity.”
The case is Tracy J. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency), D060252.
Source http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/trac012712.htm
Budget Cuts Threaten Parental Rights - New Hampshire
By Dan Gorenstein
Until last July, when the state charged low-income parents with abuse or neglect of their children, the state provided them with a lawyer.
But to help balance the budget, that funding was eliminated.
New Hampshire is believed to be the only state in the country that’s ever taken such a step.
The people charged with enforcing the new policy are worried that it doesn’t serve parents or their children very well.
When Governor John Lynch and his staff were preparing his budget proposal last year, the governor made a decision.
He recommended the state cut the money to pay lawyers to represent parents in abuse and neglect cases.
The savings...$1.2 million dollars a year.
And with the Legislature in a race to balance the budget, lawmakers quickly accepted that plan along with millions of dollars worth of other cuts proposed by the governor.
That decision by Governor Lynch - made in some meeting at the statehouse in early 2011- is now playing out in court rooms like this.
“So Mr. ____ one of the topics that we are going to go through today is making sure you have an understanding of what the potential consequences of this type of case are to your parental rights and responsibilities.”
We’re in a preliminary hearing with Judge Susan Ashley in the Rochester Family Division Courthouse.
We masked any names to protect the identity of the father and his child.
Speaking to the father, a man we’ll call ‘Donald,’ the judge stressed just what’s at stake.
“Ultimately if the court made a decision that your parental rights should be terminated, it would be at that point, you would no longer have any legal rights, duties, or obligations with regard to ____. Do you understand that’s a potential consequence to this type of a cases?”
After the hearing Donald says he completely gets there’s a chance he could lose his 4-year old forever.
But what he needs to do to prevent that, he not sure at all.
“It’s all happening it pretty quick. And I having a hard time kind of processing everything that’s going on and knowing what’s going to go on.”
This is not a case of abuse...it’s neglect.
The 34-year-old father explains he doesn’t have any place for his child to live right now.
So, she’s headed to foster care.
Donald cuts trees for a living.
He has a thick bush of black beard.
A tattoo stretches across his collarbone, an ink necklace.
“What’s the highest level of education you have...10thgrade...you dropped out...yes. I have dyslexia, I have a hard time reading and writing.”
How hard?
Donald’s fiancé Megan points to the an ‘Emergency Exit’ sign
Donald can’t read it.
Megan says her fiancé is counting on her to help him through this process....help him go through all the paperwork.
The 21-year-old says she’s out of her league.
“I can read what’s on the paper...but I can’t explain what it means in layman’s terms. Just b/c I can read it, doesn’t mean I get it. B/c half the time, I don’t.”
Judges and lawyers know the 900-some cases they’ll likely see this year will have parents who are unfit to represent themselves.
And they don’t like it...it doesn’t fit their idea of justice.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes. And it’s not fun. It doesn’t make me feel good about doing my job.”
Peter Brunette is an attorney for the state.
His job is to argue against the parents.
“Without a lawyer, there’s no way they can navigate this system to ensure that their rights are being adequately protected. That’s the problem we are all struggling with right now.”
Lawyers and judges are bending over backwards, taking extra time with these cases.
A routine 10 minute hearings 8 months ago, now can take an hour.
It’s because people like Judge Ashley try to explain things simply, and answer question after question.
But Ashley says that may not be enough.
“It concerns me there are too many parents feeling isolated against a group of people who appear to be expert in these types of cases, who parents see as ‘on the other side.’”
Essentially, parents have 12 months to shape up and address the source of the neglect.
Sometimes that’s counseling for substance abuse, or mental illness, or getting out of a violent relationship.
But without a lawyer to navigate the process, Ashley thinks parents are more likely to get overwhelmed and give up.
“Suddenly those 12 months have slipped away. And we find ourselves at a permanency hearing where the parent hasn’t done what they needed to do to correct the conditions of neglect. So I worry that there are parents who may face petitions to terminate their parental rights when they may have had the ability to fix the situation.”
University of Michigan Law Professor Vivek Sankaran worries the state may get exactly what it would normally try to avoid – a generation of kids who grow up without their parents.
Sankaran is a leading expert on child advocacy in the courts.
“It just flies in the face of everything we know about child welfare practice and policy and how to make good decisions. What makes what happens in New Hampshire so striking, is that over the past 30 years the practice of child welfare has become much more sophisticated...and then you get this, where we’ve just reverted back to where we were in the 1960’s or the 1950’s.”
“You do the best you can with budgets. And budgets is about setting priorities.”
That’s Governor Lynch.
Lynch says New Hampshire continues to fund lawyers for parents if the state files a termination of parental rights case.
That’s that step after parents were given the 12 months to correct their problems.
It’s widely believed that by the time the state files a termination of parental rights, it’s too late to reunite parent with child.
But the governor says he stands by his decision.
“A budget is about making tough choices. And that’s what we had to do with the budget we proposed.”
Donald and Megan feel they’re not going to get much sympathy from people like Governor Lynch and lawmakers in Concord.
“I think people just look at people who are losing their kids, people just look at them like they are scumbags....I don’t think people understand it ain’t always due to abuse or anything like that. Sometimes it’s over financial problems why they need help.”
“The people in Concord don’t care...They go home every night to their kids and wife and their husband and live the life that they want. But they have people like us sitting here, not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow. Ever. They don’t have that. I wish they would just live in people’s shoes who don’t have everything and that can’t figure it out as easily as they can.”
Lawyers representing parents are taking this to the state Supreme Court.
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of this budget cut are expected sometime this spring.
By the time the case is settled, the window for Donald to reunite with his 4-year-old could be closed.
Source http://www.nhpr.org/post/budget-cuts-threaten-parental-rights
Until last July, when the state charged low-income parents with abuse or neglect of their children, the state provided them with a lawyer.
But to help balance the budget, that funding was eliminated.
New Hampshire is believed to be the only state in the country that’s ever taken such a step.
The people charged with enforcing the new policy are worried that it doesn’t serve parents or their children very well.
When Governor John Lynch and his staff were preparing his budget proposal last year, the governor made a decision.
He recommended the state cut the money to pay lawyers to represent parents in abuse and neglect cases.
The savings...$1.2 million dollars a year.
And with the Legislature in a race to balance the budget, lawmakers quickly accepted that plan along with millions of dollars worth of other cuts proposed by the governor.
That decision by Governor Lynch - made in some meeting at the statehouse in early 2011- is now playing out in court rooms like this.
“So Mr. ____ one of the topics that we are going to go through today is making sure you have an understanding of what the potential consequences of this type of case are to your parental rights and responsibilities.”
We’re in a preliminary hearing with Judge Susan Ashley in the Rochester Family Division Courthouse.
We masked any names to protect the identity of the father and his child.
Speaking to the father, a man we’ll call ‘Donald,’ the judge stressed just what’s at stake.
“Ultimately if the court made a decision that your parental rights should be terminated, it would be at that point, you would no longer have any legal rights, duties, or obligations with regard to ____. Do you understand that’s a potential consequence to this type of a cases?”
After the hearing Donald says he completely gets there’s a chance he could lose his 4-year old forever.
But what he needs to do to prevent that, he not sure at all.
“It’s all happening it pretty quick. And I having a hard time kind of processing everything that’s going on and knowing what’s going to go on.”
This is not a case of abuse...it’s neglect.
The 34-year-old father explains he doesn’t have any place for his child to live right now.
So, she’s headed to foster care.
Donald cuts trees for a living.
He has a thick bush of black beard.
A tattoo stretches across his collarbone, an ink necklace.
“What’s the highest level of education you have...10thgrade...you dropped out...yes. I have dyslexia, I have a hard time reading and writing.”
How hard?
Donald’s fiancé Megan points to the an ‘Emergency Exit’ sign
Donald can’t read it.
Megan says her fiancé is counting on her to help him through this process....help him go through all the paperwork.
The 21-year-old says she’s out of her league.
“I can read what’s on the paper...but I can’t explain what it means in layman’s terms. Just b/c I can read it, doesn’t mean I get it. B/c half the time, I don’t.”
Judges and lawyers know the 900-some cases they’ll likely see this year will have parents who are unfit to represent themselves.
And they don’t like it...it doesn’t fit their idea of justice.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes. And it’s not fun. It doesn’t make me feel good about doing my job.”
Peter Brunette is an attorney for the state.
His job is to argue against the parents.
“Without a lawyer, there’s no way they can navigate this system to ensure that their rights are being adequately protected. That’s the problem we are all struggling with right now.”
Lawyers and judges are bending over backwards, taking extra time with these cases.
A routine 10 minute hearings 8 months ago, now can take an hour.
It’s because people like Judge Ashley try to explain things simply, and answer question after question.
But Ashley says that may not be enough.
“It concerns me there are too many parents feeling isolated against a group of people who appear to be expert in these types of cases, who parents see as ‘on the other side.’”
Essentially, parents have 12 months to shape up and address the source of the neglect.
Sometimes that’s counseling for substance abuse, or mental illness, or getting out of a violent relationship.
But without a lawyer to navigate the process, Ashley thinks parents are more likely to get overwhelmed and give up.
“Suddenly those 12 months have slipped away. And we find ourselves at a permanency hearing where the parent hasn’t done what they needed to do to correct the conditions of neglect. So I worry that there are parents who may face petitions to terminate their parental rights when they may have had the ability to fix the situation.”
University of Michigan Law Professor Vivek Sankaran worries the state may get exactly what it would normally try to avoid – a generation of kids who grow up without their parents.
Sankaran is a leading expert on child advocacy in the courts.
“It just flies in the face of everything we know about child welfare practice and policy and how to make good decisions. What makes what happens in New Hampshire so striking, is that over the past 30 years the practice of child welfare has become much more sophisticated...and then you get this, where we’ve just reverted back to where we were in the 1960’s or the 1950’s.”
“You do the best you can with budgets. And budgets is about setting priorities.”
That’s Governor Lynch.
Lynch says New Hampshire continues to fund lawyers for parents if the state files a termination of parental rights case.
That’s that step after parents were given the 12 months to correct their problems.
It’s widely believed that by the time the state files a termination of parental rights, it’s too late to reunite parent with child.
But the governor says he stands by his decision.
“A budget is about making tough choices. And that’s what we had to do with the budget we proposed.”
Donald and Megan feel they’re not going to get much sympathy from people like Governor Lynch and lawmakers in Concord.
“I think people just look at people who are losing their kids, people just look at them like they are scumbags....I don’t think people understand it ain’t always due to abuse or anything like that. Sometimes it’s over financial problems why they need help.”
“The people in Concord don’t care...They go home every night to their kids and wife and their husband and live the life that they want. But they have people like us sitting here, not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow. Ever. They don’t have that. I wish they would just live in people’s shoes who don’t have everything and that can’t figure it out as easily as they can.”
Lawyers representing parents are taking this to the state Supreme Court.
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of this budget cut are expected sometime this spring.
By the time the case is settled, the window for Donald to reunite with his 4-year-old could be closed.
Source http://www.nhpr.org/post/budget-cuts-threaten-parental-rights
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Court upholds termination of soldier’s parental rights - Arkansas
By John Lyon
LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Court of Appeals today upheld the state Department of Human Services’ decision to terminate the parental rights of an Arkansas man who was serving in the Army in Iraq when his wife’s boyfriend severely injured his 5-month-old son.
A six-judge panel of the court ruled 5-1 that Edward Glover’s appeal of the ruling was without merit. The dissenting judge said the appeal did have merit because Pulaski County circuit judges exceeded their authority in requiring Glover to “jump through various hoops” to retain custody of his son even though he had done nothing wrong.
According to the judges’ opinions, it was discovered in April 2009 that Glover’s son had been the victim of severe abuse. The boy had bruising to his scalp and around his eyes, retinal hemorrhages, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, a possible lung contusion, three rib fractures and burns in several places.
Glover was serving in Iraq at the time. DHS and the circuit court determined that the abuser was Glover’s wife’s lover and that Glover’s wife knew that her boyfriend had a history of domestic violence but chose to discount it. The parental rights of Glover’s wife were terminated.
Glover obtained emergency leave and returned to Arkansas in May 2009. He attended a series of hearings, presided over by a series of judges, and was given a long list of orders to comply with, including obtaining a psychological examination, attending parenting classes, attending anger-management classes and submitting to DNA tests and random drug and alcohol screenings, among other things.
Glover’s parental rights were terminated in February of this year for failing to comply with the orders. His lawyer filed a “no merit” appeal — meaning the lawyer believed the appeal was without merit but filed it at Glover’s insistence — and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case.
Today, the Court of Appeals granted the lawyer’s request and affirmed the order terminating Glover’s parental rights, finding that the appeal was “wholly without merit.”
Judge John Pittman wrote the majority opinion, with Judges Robert Gladwin, John Robbins, Robin Wynne and David Glover concurring.
Judge Josephine Hart wrote in the dissent that the circuit judges had no authority to impose the requirements on Glover.
“The reason (for the judges’ orders) was the criminal battery of the child by a person who was engaged in an adulterous relationship with the child’s mother while Mr. Glover was deployed more than 4,000 miles away in the armed forces of his country,” Hart wrote.
Pittman said in the majority opinion that “the dissenting judge’s passionate outrage is noteworthy,” but he said the issues she raised were not raised in any of the circuit court hearings and could not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Source http://arkansasnews.com/2011/12/07/court-upholds-termination-of-soldier%E2%80%99s-parental-rights/
LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Court of Appeals today upheld the state Department of Human Services’ decision to terminate the parental rights of an Arkansas man who was serving in the Army in Iraq when his wife’s boyfriend severely injured his 5-month-old son.
A six-judge panel of the court ruled 5-1 that Edward Glover’s appeal of the ruling was without merit. The dissenting judge said the appeal did have merit because Pulaski County circuit judges exceeded their authority in requiring Glover to “jump through various hoops” to retain custody of his son even though he had done nothing wrong.
According to the judges’ opinions, it was discovered in April 2009 that Glover’s son had been the victim of severe abuse. The boy had bruising to his scalp and around his eyes, retinal hemorrhages, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, a possible lung contusion, three rib fractures and burns in several places.
Glover was serving in Iraq at the time. DHS and the circuit court determined that the abuser was Glover’s wife’s lover and that Glover’s wife knew that her boyfriend had a history of domestic violence but chose to discount it. The parental rights of Glover’s wife were terminated.
Glover obtained emergency leave and returned to Arkansas in May 2009. He attended a series of hearings, presided over by a series of judges, and was given a long list of orders to comply with, including obtaining a psychological examination, attending parenting classes, attending anger-management classes and submitting to DNA tests and random drug and alcohol screenings, among other things.
Glover’s parental rights were terminated in February of this year for failing to comply with the orders. His lawyer filed a “no merit” appeal — meaning the lawyer believed the appeal was without merit but filed it at Glover’s insistence — and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case.
Today, the Court of Appeals granted the lawyer’s request and affirmed the order terminating Glover’s parental rights, finding that the appeal was “wholly without merit.”
Judge John Pittman wrote the majority opinion, with Judges Robert Gladwin, John Robbins, Robin Wynne and David Glover concurring.
Judge Josephine Hart wrote in the dissent that the circuit judges had no authority to impose the requirements on Glover.
“The reason (for the judges’ orders) was the criminal battery of the child by a person who was engaged in an adulterous relationship with the child’s mother while Mr. Glover was deployed more than 4,000 miles away in the armed forces of his country,” Hart wrote.
Pittman said in the majority opinion that “the dissenting judge’s passionate outrage is noteworthy,” but he said the issues she raised were not raised in any of the circuit court hearings and could not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Source http://arkansasnews.com/2011/12/07/court-upholds-termination-of-soldier%E2%80%99s-parental-rights/
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Termination of Parental Rights
The Disability and Parental Rights Legislative Change Project was initiated at the University of Minnesota as a collaborative project in the College of Education and Human Development between the School of Social Work and the Institute on Community Integration. The collaboration developed following the identification of discriminatory legislation within child custody and terminaton of parental rights statutes. The goal of the project is to assist interested groups in removing disability from these statutes to eliminate discrimination, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the safety, permanency and well-being of children. This guide provides an overview of the problem; key principles for protecting parents with disabilities; model statutory language and accompanying definitions; a legislative change strategy; practice suggestions for modifying services and providing parental accommodations; frequently asked questions and answers; and resources.
Read more by clicking this link http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/CASCW/research/Disabilities/tpr/default.asp
Read more by clicking this link http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/CASCW/research/Disabilities/tpr/default.asp
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Michigan CPS and Failure To Prevent Injury
In the trial court, the judge ordered that the rights of the baby’s mother and father be terminated. The parents appealed the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals. They argued that there is no evidence against either of them that they were the perpetrator of any child abuse, and therefore the child should not be taken from them. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, stating that there need be no “definitive evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator, where the evidence does show that the respondent or respondents must either have caused or failed to prevent the child’s injuries.” This ruling is one step closer to strict liability for unexplained infant injuries in Michigan. According to the Court of Appeals, the caretaking parent must have caused the injury, or he or she must have failed to prevent the injury. According to the Court of Appeals, either of these situations offer sufficient grounds for a judge to terminate a parent’s parental rights.
Read the entire story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)