Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LEANNA WEISSMANN Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALISON T. FRAZIER Alcorn Goering & Sage Madison, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF RHONDA YOUNGBLOOD AND HER MINOR CHILD, A.Y., Appellant-Respondent, vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 39A04-0505-JV-273

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Ted Todd, Judge Cause No. 39C01-0410-JT-2

December 14, 2005

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Judge

Rhonda Youngblood ("Mother") appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error. Mother raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother's motion to correct error in which she petitioned the trial court to set aside her consent to the voluntary termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.Y. We affirm. The relevant facts follow. When A.Y. was born on January 30, 2003, her amniotic fluid was filled with blood, which is associated with cocaine use, and with meconium, which is suggestive of severe distress. Also, at the time of A.Y.'s birth, she had a high heart rate and was irritable. Mother admitted to using alcohol, marijuana, and Zanax during her pregnancy. Mother also admitted that she used cocaine during the first trimester of her pregnancy. On January 31, 2003, the Jefferson County Division of Family and Children ("JCDFC") filed a petition alleging that A.Y. was a child in need of services ("CHINS"). The trial court authorized the JCDFC to take A.Y. into immediate protective custody. The JCDFC offered services to Mother, and she demonstrated a willingness to participate. Mother and A.Y. were eventually reunited in April 2003. In June 2003, A.Y. was hospitalized and diagnosed with having a rare heart condition, and the hospital staff expressed their concern about Mother's ability to care for A.Y. and to meet her special medical needs. In August 2003, A.Y. was removed from Mother's home because Mother was found intoxicated in the house with A.Y. and had failed to give A.Y. her heart 2

medication. Over the next year, Mother suffered numerous relapses in her drug and alcohol addictions, failed to complete treatment programs, and engaged in several instances of self-mutilation. In April 2004, Mother gave birth to another baby girl, who tested positive for cocaine in her system. In October 2004, the JCDFC filed a petition for the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship between Mother and A.Y. On November 16, 2004, Mother appeared with counsel at a termination hearing and notified the trial court that she intended to consent to the termination of her parental rights to A.Y. 1 "with the understanding that it be an open adoption and that matters be . . . a visitation remain open between now and the time of the adoption as well as afterwards." Transcript at 3. The trial court then advised Mother of her rights and that her consent would be permanent and could not be revoked unless it was obtained by fraud or duress or unless she was incompetent. The trial court, which noted that Mother had representation and the advice of counsel, asked Mother if she still intended to voluntarily consent to the termination, and Mother responded that she did. That evening or the following day, 2 Mother signed a "Consent to Termination of Parent-Child Relationship," in which she acknowledged that

A.Y.'s father, Adam Denning ("Father"), also appeared at the hearing and notified the trial court that he wanted to consent to a voluntary termination of his parental rights to A.Y. Father thereafter consented to the termination of his parental rights and does not challenge his consent on appeal. Mother testified that she signed the consent to terminate on the evening of the termination hearing, which was November 16, 2004, but the consent is dated November 17, 2004.
2

1

3

she had received a notice of rights form 3 and "knowingly and voluntarily consent[ed] to the termination of [her] parental-child relationship with [A.Y.]." Appellant's Appendix at 347. Mother's attorney reviewed the documents with Mother and notarized the

consent by affirming that Mother personally appeared before her and "stated that the representations therein contained [were] true." Id. at 347-348. In December 2004, the trial court entered its order terminating Mother's parental rights to A.Y. In January 2005, Mother filed a motion to correct error in which she petitioned the trial court to set aside her consent to terminate her parental rights because the consent was "obtained as a result of fraud, duress or mental incompetence." Id. at 349. During the hearing on Mother's motion, Mother testified that she "check[ed] out" or "blanked out" and did not understand what she was doing when she consented to terminate her rights. Transcript at 11, 18. However, Mother also testified that she remembered signing the consent with her attorney and remembered attending the termination hearing and telling the trial court that she understood. Mother testified: I thought I was . . . actually, I don't know exactly what I was doing. All I know is that I . . . I wanted to see [A.Y.], and I'm continuing to see . . . I was told if I . . . if I didn't sign them and [the trial court] took my rights I would never see her, and if I did sign them I could. This . . . I wasn't really . . . I don't know. I wasn't thinking right. I just want . . . I just wanted her to be happy, and I wanted her to be with me. Id. at 16-17. Mother's attorney stipulated that she reviewed the consent documents with Mother. The JCDFC case worker, Cindy Adams, testified that she explained to Mother

The notice of rights form advised Mother that her "consent is permanent and cannot be revoked or set aside unless it was obtained by fraud or duress, or unless [she is] incompetent[.]" Appellant's

3

4

that if she proceeded with a voluntary termination that the adoption of A.Y. would be an open adoption 4 and that Mother would be able see A.Y. The case worker, who had worked with Mother for two years, testified that other than the fact that Mother was "visibly upset" on the day of the termination hearing, there was nothing about her appearance that would lead her to believe that Mother did not understand what was happening. Id. at 32. The trial court denied Mother's motion to correct error and issued an order, which provides, in relevant part: "The Court now finds that the mother Rhonda

Appendix at 345. 4 We have previously noted that an "open adoption" is "one in which the natural parent has visitation rights with her child" and "is not recognized in Indiana." In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Infant Ellis, 681 N.E.2d 1145, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied, abrogated on other grounds by Neal v. DeKalb County Div. Of Family and Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003). However, we also note that Ind. Code

Download In Re: A.Y..pdf

Indiana Law