Court Opinion

ID: 9542745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:38:05.255478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:50.477338
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
An indigent parent's statutory right to counsel in a termination proceeding is obviously founded upon the constitutional right to due process. It is of no moment that the proceedings are denominated as "eivil" rather than "criminal." Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981) 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640. This constitutional underpinning1 to the right of counsel coupled with the grave consequences of the permanent and irrevocable deprivation lead me to conclude that waiver of the right should be tested by the standard employed in criminal cases. In this regard, I therefore disagree with the majority opinion.
Nevertheless, I believe the waiver of counsel issue in this case withstands strict scrutiny. I concur in the majority's conclusion that Ms. Keen knowingly and intentionally waived her right to appointed counsel and is appropriately held to the consequences of that waiver.
For this reason, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.

. Article 1, § 12 of the Indiana Constitution, as well as the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, affords due process.