COA: Continued Placement With Foster Parents Not In Children’s Best interests

Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

Three Miami County children will not be returned to their previous foster parents after the Indiana Court of Appeals found Friday the trial court correctly determined the foster mother had become obsessed with the notion that the children were molested, making continued placement with her not in the children’s best interests.

In July 2015, three siblings – Ale.P., Ala.P., and J.P. – were placed in the custody of their foster parents. C.R. and A.R., after being alleged to be children in need of services. However, the children were removed from the foster home a little more than a year later, prompting the foster parents to file a for return of children, custody and guardianship.

The Miami Circuit Court granted the foster parents’ motion to intervene in the CHINS matter, and during a subsequent hearing, the children’s grandparents testified that J.P. had a tendency to play with his genitalia, while Ale.P. exhibited sexual behaviors. But Angela Isley, a Department of Child Services case manager supervisor, testified that the major deciding factor in the decision to remove the children was their testimony that A.R., their foster mother, had forced them to say their biological parents had molested them.

Further, DCS employee Brenda McGinnis testified she was concerned A.R. was planting ideas in the children’s heads about sexual abuse that didn’t occur. However, Alayne Cook, the children’s court appointed special advocate, testified that the siblings felt stable and secure in the foster parents’ home and that she had not witnessed them exhibit any sexual behavior.

Additionally, Indiana State Police Detective Michelle Jumper testified that she spoke with A.R. during her investigation and found the foster mother’s story changed and that she “wanted to believe so badly that these kids had been molested” to the point where “she was obsessed with this whole situation.” Jumper also interviewed the biological parents and cleared them as suspects.

The Miami Circuit Court denied the foster parents’ motions in October 2016, writing in an order that A.R. had exhibited a lack of restraint and obsessive behavior, including publicly accusing the children’s biological parents of being child molesters. Thus, continued placement with A.R. and C.R. was not in the children’s best interests, the trial court said.

After their motion to correct error was denied, the foster parents appealed, arguing first that they were denied due process when the trial court did not cite to the legal standard it would use when deciding the case. But in a Friday opinion, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown said the foster parents did not cite to authority that required the juvenile court to make such a specific citation.

Further, the foster parents’ counsel urged the court to primarily consider the children’s best interests when it made its decision as to the motions. The court did so by determining in its order that staying with A.R. and C.R. was not in their best interests, Brown said, so the foster parents were not deprived of due process.

The trial court additionally expressed concern about the “shifting” nature of the accounts of the children’s behavior, noting that A.R. testified the children behaved sexually while their teachers and cases workers did not identify such behavior. Such a finding, as well as the finding that A.R. behaved obsessively, was not clearly erroneous, Brown said.

Gavel Gamut by Jim Redwine

www.jamesmredwine.com

NOT A PROBLEM

I recently received a respectfully worded request for excusal from jury duty. I granted it. The potential juror claimed a religious exemption. I am not a theologian although one of my nephews just received his doctorate in Theology from Oklahoma Baptist University. He makes no claim for religious exemption from jury service. I say to each his own.

Should a person assert sincerely held beliefs that her or his god, faith, philosophy or belief prohibits jury service, so be it. Such positions, if rooted in the First Amendment, are fine with me. Religion should not be involved in our legal system. That’s what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the revolutionaries meant to protect.

Those of you who are called for jury service and just find it inconvenient but not in violation of any religious test may think it is unfair to excuse persons who enjoy all the benefits provided by America but refuse to participate in a core responsibility of citizenship. You might feel the same about conscientious objectors to military service or those who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds.

I see such decisions much as I do allowing protestors to demonstrate in support of or against things the majority may oppose or favor. If the Constitution does not protect those with whom most citizens disagree, why have a Constitution? Those whose beliefs fall within the parameters of generally accepted beliefs need not be concerned with their free exercise.

The gracious acceptance of those views most of us adhere to calls for little praise. However, America shines like the beacon most of us want Her to be when She protects those who need protection from the rest of us.

As to the potential juror, I say, and by the way so does the Supreme Court, if you are sincere in your minority belief, the majority will respect your right not only to believe it but also to exercise it.

For more Gavel Gamut articles go to:

www.jamesmredwine.com