Court Opinion

ID: 9738059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:41:41.680419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.481218
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the majority herein rest clearly and simply upon the premise that the children will be better off as wards of the governmental bureaucracy or in a foster home.
Not only is the evidence in support of the judgment less than "clear and convincing," it does not even approximate a preponderance in favor of the Welfare Department.
As stated in In re J.H. (1984) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 468 N.E.2d 542, 546, quoting In re Miedl (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 137, 141:
"Children are not taken from the custody of their parents because there is a better or the 'best' place for them. They are taken because the present place in the custody of their parents is wholly inadequate for their very survival. Before a court can do anything with regard to the future of the children, it must first be found that the circumstances are such that the parental tie must be severed and a different direction found that gives some chance to the child or children."
The decision today constitutes an unwarranted and very real threat to every parent who feeds, clothes, shelters and loves his child, but happens to be intellectually and economically less well endowed than is acceptable to those of us who work within governmental social agencies and judicial systems.
Would that I had the skill and the erudition to dissent in stronger terms.