Tillotson v. CLAY COUNTY DEPT. OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN
Decision Date | 23 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 11A01-0205-JV-162.,11A01-0205-JV-162. |
Citation | 777 N.E.2d 741 |
Parties | Peggy S. TILLOTSON, and Raymond H. Tillotson, Jr., Appellants, v. CLAY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Fritzy D. Modesitt, Brazil, IN, Attorney for Appellants.
Margaret A. Berry, Brazil, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Peggy and Raymond Tillotson (Parents) appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights with their five minor children, D.J.T., J.R.T., R.H.T., D.D.T., and S.M.T. They present the following restated issue for review: Were Parents denied due process of law by the trial court's failure to devise alternative means by which they could testify and participate in the termination hearing from prison?1
We affirm.
On August 4, 2000, fourteen-year-old D.J.T. was discovered shackled by his ankles inside an approximately two-foot-by-three-foot closet. Parents had locked him in the small area, providing him with only bread and water, and then left for work. Their plan was to leave him locked up in this manner for forty-eight hours and then allow him short periods of time out of confinement for about another two weeks until school started. Following this discovery, Parents were charged with neglect of a dependent, a class C felony. They pleaded guilty on December 22, 2000 and were sentenced on February 6, 2001 to four years in prison.
Pursuant to a petition filed by the Clay County Office of Family and Children (the OFC), the children were adjudicated Children in Need of Services on December 22, and a dispositional order was entered on January 29, 2001, providing for the children to remain in foster care. Thereafter, on August 20, 2001, the OFC filed petitions for the involuntary termination of their parental rights.2
Parents filed a pro se Motion to Transport on September 6, 2001, seeking an order authorizing the Clay County Sheriff's Department to transport them from their respective places of incarceration to the Clay County Circuit Court for the termination hearing.3 The trial court denied this motion. Parents, by appointed counsel, filed a second Motion to Transport on October 25, 2001. Peggy's motion, which is substantially similar to Raymond's, provides in relevant part:
Comes now the respondent, by counsel, and moves the court to transport respondent from her place of incarceration so that she may defend the termination of her parental rights. Further, and in the event that the court denies transportation, the respondent requests the court devise an alternate method by which respondent could give testimony and participate in the hearing.
Appellants' Appendix at 22. The trial court also denied this motion.
Four months later, on February 27, 2002, on the second day of the termination hearing and prior to the introduction of evidence, Parents, by counsel, again raised the issue of their absence from the hearing:
Parents were represented by appointed counsel at each stage of the termination proceedings. At the evidentiary hearing, Parents' counsel exercised their right to cross-examine the OFC witnesses but did not present any witnesses or evidence in their favor. Following the hearing, on March 6, 2002, the trial court entered an order terminating their parental rights. The trial court found the following facts, among others, established by clear and convincing evidence:
* * * *
Appellants' Appendix at 17-18. This appeal followed.
Parents' only contention on appeal is that their due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to devise an alternate method by which they could give testimony and defend themselves against the damning evidence presented by the OFC.4 They contend, "due process and fundamental fairness would demand the parents not be required to stand mute in the light of so many allegations." Appellants' Brief at 10.
When the State seeks to terminate a parent-child relationship, it must do so in a manner that meets the requirements of the due process clause. J.T. v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, 740 N.E.2d 1261 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)), trans. denied. While an incarcerated parent does not have an absolute right to be physically present at a termination hearing,5 such parent does have the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. See J.T. v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, 740 N.E.2d 1261
. Although due process has never been precisely defined, the phrase embodies a requirement of fundamental fairness. Id. The nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In the Matter of The Involuntary Termination of Parent–child Relationship of C.G. v. Marion County Dep't of Child Serv.
...in the same facility.2 The Court of Appeals first addressed this issue in Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family and Children, 777 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). The Court of Appeals found that parents were not denied due process when they were not transported to their termination hearing.......
-
Bester v. Lake County Office of Family
...culture." Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 285 (Ind.2003) (quoting Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741, 745 (Ind.Ct.App.2002)). We recognize of course that parental interests are not absolute and must be subordinated to the chi......
-
Neal v. DeKalb Cty. Div. of Fam. & Children
...observed, the parent-child relationship is "one of the most valued relationships in our culture." Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741, 745 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied; In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.L.M. & M.G., 725 N.E.2d 981, 9......
-
Neal v. Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.N.
...observed, the parent-child relationship is "one of the most valued relationships in our culture." Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741, 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.L.M. & M.G., 725 N.E.2d 981......