Ellis v. Knox County Department of Public Welfare
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Termination: J R v. Indiana Department of Child Services (Ind. Ct. App. 2025)
- In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights of A.R. and M.R. (Minor Children), S.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
- In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.C. K.W. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
- In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.G., Mother, D.B., Father, and N.G. and B.B., Minor Children, K.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
- Russell v. Allen County Department of Public Welfare (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)
- Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.K.C. v. Fountain County Department of Public Welfare (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
- Jamerson v. Anderson Newspapers, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
- In re Adoption of M.E.T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)
- E.S. v. Bartholomew County Department of Public Welfare (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)
- Matter of Lozier (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)
- People in Interest of SH (S.D. 1982)
- Matter of Adoption of Ryan L. (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Adoption of Marcum (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)
- Jones v. Jackson County Department of Public Welfare (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)
- Marcum v. Cotter (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)
- Van Hoosier v. Grant County Department of Public Welfare (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)
- People ex rel. S. H. (S.D. 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The appellant-respondents, the natural parents of Chad Owen Ellis, appeal from the trial court’s judgment terminating their parental rights.
Because we reverse, the sole issue to be examined is the constitutionality of the preponderance of the evidence standard set forth in Ind. Code 31-6-7-13(a) and heretofore applicable in proceedings to terminate parental rights. The recent United States Supreme Court case of Santosky v. Kramer, _ U.S. _, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) holds that such a standard of proof in cases designed to terminate parental rights violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, a “clear and convincing” standard is necessary to satisfy due process.
The record herein shows affirmatively that the trial court used the lower standard of proof called for by our statute.
As a result of Santosky, supra, we find that that part of I.C. 31-6-7-13(a) requiring a preponderance of the evidence standard in termination of parental rights proceedings is not constitutional.
The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.