In their appeal, the parents, who are referred to as B. S. and L. S. in the court decision, argued that they were not at the trial and were not properly represented by attorneys.
The unanimous court decision, which was handed down August 7, explains just how that happened, as the parents could not agree with one court-appointed attorney after another and kept firing them.
Causing more of a problem for the parents were the results of the drug tests the court required them to take. Both husband and wife failed every test they took and finally refused to take them.
Three of their four children were taken by the police in October 2014 after a domestic violence report, according to the court decision. The fourth one was taken away from the parents shortly after being born five months later.
The background of the case is provided in the opinion:
In October 2014, police were called to Parents’ home, where Father was arrested for domestic violence.
Finding that the home was unsafe and unsanitary, coupled with concerns regarding Parents’ mental health and drug use, three of the children – B.L.L.S., I.J.L.S., and T.M.T.S. – were placed in the custody of the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children’s Division.
From October 2014 to March 2015, Parents entered into a written service agreement with the goal of reunification. During this time, Parents were provided services; however, Parents did not comply with the terms of the agreement as they both repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine and did not complete parenting classes.
In March 2015, Mother gave birth to another child, Z.G.H.S., and this child was also placed in the custody of the Children’s Division.
Parents entered into another written service agreement on April 16, 2015, and were offered services with the goal of reunification. Parents, however, continued to test positive for.methamphetamine or refused to be tested when requested.
In September 2015, the trial court intervened and assisted in the preparation of a final written service agreement in hopes of reunification. Once again, however, Parents continued to either test positive for drugs or refused requested drug tests.
On December 8, 2015, the trial court entered a no-contact order until Parents submitted a negative urinalysis. Later that month, both tested positive for methamphetamine and thereafter repeatedly refused to participate in any requested drug tests. Because of this, on February 5, 2016, the case goal changed from reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption.
Throughout the proceedings after the children were taken into custody, Parents continuously refused to provide Children’s Division with their home address. This refusal prevented Children’s Division from inspecting and evaluating Parents’ home for safety and appropriateness for reunification.
Also, the trial court from time to time throughout the proceedings appointed twelve different attorneys to represent Parents. While some of these attorneys were required to withdraw due to routine conflict checks, seven attorneys cited as reasons for withdrawal a lack of cooperation from Parents, requests made by Parents for them to withdraw, or both.
During the underlying neglect proceeding before the termination petition was filed, Parents were separately represented by successive appointed counsels. In the termination proceeding, and apparently at Parents’ request following warnings about the potential for conflicts of interest in joint representation, Parents were initially jointly represented by court appointed attorney, Patricia Loveland (“Loveland”). Loveland, however, was eventually asked to withdraw by Mother, after Mother revealed she was filing a bar complaint against Loveland. Father later told the trial court that Loveland was “working against us.”
On March 17, 2017, during a hearing for which Parents were aware the trial court had specifically ordered them to attend, but for which they did not appear, the trial court granted Loveland leave to withdraw from representing both Mother and Father.
At a hearing on March 31, 2017, Parents requested another court-appointed attorney, but this time requested separate attorneys for each. The trial court warned Parents that the court was “kind of running out of lawyers here locally” but the court would appoint two more attorneys, one for Father and one for Mother.
Upon Mother’s inquiry, the trial court confirmed that it was willing to appoint, at no cost to parents, an attorney of their own choosing if they found one satisfactory to them and willing to accept the appointment.
Parents asked the trial court to delay appointing any attorneys for them at that time in order to give them an opportunity to find their own attorneys willing to accept an appointment. The trial court gave them until April 21, 2017, for that purpose.
Additionally, the trial court warned Parents about the consequences of not cooperating with their lawyers and discussed the potential of a finding of an implied waiver of counsel or constructive waiver of counsel in the event of a failure to do so. The trial court then urged Parents to cooperate with their attorneys in good faith.
On April 21, 2017, having heard nothing from Parents about their search for an attorney, the trial court appointed attorney Jared Thomas to represent Mother and attorney Terry Neff to represent Father.
Shortly after being appointed, attorney Jared Thomas filed a motion to withdraw, which the court granted on May 5, 2017. The trial court then appointed attorney Dylan W. Thomas to represent Mother. Thereafter, both attorney Dylan W. Thomas and attorney Terry Neff separately filed motions to withdraw from representing their respective clients, which were all noticed for hearing at 9 a.m. on July 7, 2017.
Although being duly noticed and apparently having actual notice of the July 7, 2017 hearing on counsels’ motions to withdraw, neither Father nor Mother appeared. During that hearing, the trial court heard of Mother’s (1) repeated refusal to meet in person with counsel, (2) repeated refusal to discuss the case on the phone with counsel without Father’s participation in the call, which Mother’s counsel considered to be an ethical violation for him to talk with Father who was represented by other counsel, (3) failure to disclose her residential address to counsel, (4) filing motions with the court herself without discussing the matter with counsel, and (5) failure to appear at hearings on related cases.
The trial court also heard about Father’s (1) repeated refusal to discuss the case on the phone with his counsel without Mother’s participation in the call, which Father’s counsel considered to be an ethical violation for him to talk with Mother who was represented by another attorney, (2) failure to appear for any of his three scheduled appointments with counsel, (3) failure to disclose his residential address to counsel, (4) belligerence toward his attorney’s staff, (5) threats to file bar complaints against his attorney, (6) filing motions with the court himself without discussing the matter with counsel, and (7) failure to appear at hearings on related cases.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted each attorney leave to withdraw and entered a written order making, among others, the following findings of fact: [Mother] has effectively waived her right to counsel by her continuous failure to meet with court appointed counsel, by not providing a valid address as previously ordered by the Court, and continued insistence for court appointed counsel to participate [sic] in prohibited communications.
Further, mother’s continued failure to cooperate, absent valid justification, is an affirmative waiver of her right to counsel. Finally, mother’s filing numerous pleadings on her own, without notification to or consultation with her numerous appointed counsel, shows this court that she is rejecting her current and former appointed counsel.
[Father] has effectively waived his right to counsel by his continuous failure to keep their meetings and provide a valid address as previously ordered by the Court. Further, father’s continued failure to cooperate, absent valid justification, is an affirmative waiver of his right to counsel. Finally, father’s filing numerous pleadings on his own, without notification to or consultation with his numerous appointed counsel, shows this court that he is rejecting his current and former appointed counsel. Later that day, Mother contacted the court clerk’s office by telephone and inquired as to the status of the attorney withdrawals. The clerk informed Mother the court had granted both attorneys leave to withdraw, advised Mother the case was set for trial on October 20, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., and requested that Mother provide an updated address.
Neither Mother nor Father appeared for the scheduled trial held on October 20, 2017. In confirming their non-appearance on the record, the trial court stated that “[t]hey’ve apparently called the clerk’s office several times this morning,” but the trial court did not mention and nothing in the record discloses the nature or subject matter of those conversations with the clerk.
Because the children were of Native American heritage, Tad Teehee, an official representative of the Cherokee Nation, testified at the trial. During his testimony, the trial court found, without objection, that Teehee was a qualified expert witness for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”).
Teehee testified that the ICWA requirements had been met, and that it was his recommendation for the children not to be returned to Parents at this time. On November 6, 2017, the trial court entered a judgment terminating Parents’ parental rights to the children based on the grounds of abandonment, abuse and neglect, and failure to rectify.
***
Advertisement
Unforgettable stories of Newton County people and places- Newton County Memories is available now at Amazon.com in both paperback and e-book formats or locally at Granby Auto Supply and Hardware, Changing Hands Book Shoppe and Always Buying Books in Joplin and Pat's Books in Carthage.
3 comments:
This was the right decision. How sad that the parents chose drugs over their children.
I pray that these children are given over to good homes where they have a chance for a normal life.
The parents will most likely continue down their same path, still not trying to rid themselves of addiction. So many children everyday are abandoned by their parents because of this horrible drug.
What do you want to bet there's a FB page whining about how the evil courts "stole" their babies and asking for money for lawyers?!?!
Our system works to hard for reunification. If only it worked half as hard for rehabilitation of criminals.
Post a Comment