Title: In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.B.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49S02-1402-JT-77
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: March 26, 2014

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 
Steven J. Halbert 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Carmel, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Robert J. Henke 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patrick M. Rhodes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Marion County Department of Child  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Services 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ryan Kenneth Gardner 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Child Advocates, Inc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-1402-JT-77  
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY  
TERMINATION OF THE PARENT- 
CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF  S.B., AY.B., 
A.B. AND K.G.,  
 
 
 
K.G.,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Respondent), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
MARION  COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF  
CHILD SERVICES,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Petitioner), 
 
AND 
 
CHILD ADVOCATES, INC., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Guardian Ad Litem). 
_________________________________ 
 
Mar 26 2014, 11:41 am
2 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court,  
Nos. 49D09-1208-JT-31368 
        49D09-1208-JT-31369 
        49D09-1208-JT-31370 
        49D09-1208-JT-31371 
The Honorable Marilyn Moores, Judge 
The Honorable Larry Bradley, Magistrate  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1303-JT-244 
_________________________________ 
 
March 26, 2014 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We granted transfer in this case and In the Matter of Involuntary Termination of the 
Parent-Child Relationship of I.P., ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. 2014), to address due process safeguards 
where a magistrate presiding over a termination of parental rights hearing resigns before 
reporting recommended findings and conclusions to the judge.  In accord with our decision today 
in In re I.P., we find the procedure used in this case violated the parent's due process rights.  
 
 
The Marion County Department of Child Services ("MCDCS") petitioned to 
involuntarily terminate the parental rights of K.G. ("Mother") to her four children.  Magistrate 
Julianne Cartmel presided over the termination hearing.  Mother did not attend, but she was 
represented by counsel.  At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Cartmel took 
the matter under advisement, but she resigned her position before reporting recommended 
findings and conclusions to Judge Marilyn Moores.  See Ind. Code § 33-23-5-9.  The case was 
transferred to Magistrate Larry Bradley, who, without holding a new evidentiary hearing, 
reviewed the hearing record and reported recommended findings and conclusions.  Judge Moores 
approved the findings and conclusions and ordered Mother's parental rights terminated.  On 
Mother's appeal, the Court of Appeals found no due process violation and affirmed.   
 
 
In our decision today in In re I.P., we discuss the constitutional rights of parents to the 
care, custody, and control of their children, and the process due a parent when the State seeks to 
terminate a parent's rights.  ___ N.E.3d at ___ (citing In the Matter of the Involuntary 
3 
 
Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011); Bester 
v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005)).   
 
 
In re I.P. also reasserts the principle that a party is entitled to a determination of the issues 
by the judge who heard the evidence, and, where a case is tried to a judge who resigns before 
determining the issues, a successor judge cannot decide the issues or enter findings without a 
trial de novo.  State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Cir. Ct., 227 Ind. 353, 85 N.E.2d 254, 258 
(1949).  When a successor judge who did not hear the evidence or observe the witnesses' 
demeanor attempts to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations, the judge "is 
depriving a party of an essential element of the trial process."  In the Matter of the Involuntary 
Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.P., 994 N.E.2d 1228, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2013) (quoting Urbanational Developers, Inc. v. Shamrock Eng'g, Inc., 175 Ind. App. 416, 372 
N.E.2d 742, 746 (1978)).   
 
 
It is precisely because the judge or magistrate presiding at a termination hearing has a 
superior vantage point for assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence that we give great 
deference to a trial court's decision to terminate a parent's rights.  See In the Matter of the 
Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M., No. 45S03-1308-JT-557, 2014 WL 
895207, at *3 (Ind. Mar. 7, 2014).  Magistrate Cartmel heard the evidence and observed the 
witnesses firsthand, but she then resigned and Magistrate Bradley reviewed the record and 
reported recommended findings and conclusions to Judge Moores, who approved the findings 
and conclusions and entered a termination order.  Mother did not agree to have Magistrate 
Bradley recommend findings and conclusions based on a review of the record.  See Farner v. 
Farner, 480 N.E.2d 251, 257-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (concluding parties may stipulate to have 
successor judge who did not preside at evidentiary hearing decide the issues based on the 
record).  Nor did Mother waive her due process right by failing to object, as MCDCS alleged.  
Rather, it appears Mother was unaware of Magistrate Bradley's involvement in the case until 
after entry of the termination order, which she challenged on appeal.  In accord with In re I.P., 
we find the procedure used by the trial court violated Mother's due process rights.  See In re D.P., 
994 N.E.2d at 1233 (finding due process violation where Magistrate Cartmel presided over 
parental termination hearing and then resigned, and Magistrate Bradley reviewed the hearing 
4 
 
record and reported recommended findings and conclusions to the judge, who approved the 
findings and conclusions and entered order terminating parent's rights).    
   
 
We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with 
this opinion. 
 
All Justices concur.