Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

In re Interest of Nery V.

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Additional Case Names: 
In re Interest of Esperanza V.
Date: 
Wednesday, April 10, 2013

A-12-0629 and A-12-0662, In re Interest of Nery V., Esperanza V., and Mario V., Jr.: State v. Mario V.,  Sr. and Ida V. (Appellants)

Hall County, County Judge Philip Martin, Jr.

Attorney for Appellant Father:  Matthew C. Boyle (Lauritsen, Brownell, Bronstrom & Stehlik)

Attorney for Appellant Mother:  Janice I. Reeves (Truell, Murray & Associates) 

Attorney for Appellee State:  Sarah N. Johnson (Hall County Attorney’s Office)

Attorney for Appellee GAL:  Susan Koenig

Attorney for Appellee DHHS:  Jay B. Judds (DHHS)

Juvenile Action:  Termination of Parental Rights; ICWA

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The county court, sitting as a juvenile court, terminated Ida’s parental rights to Nery. The county court, sitting as a juvenile court, terminated Mario Sr.’s parental rights to all three of his children.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Mario Sr. assigns that the juvenile court erred by (1) failing to rule on pretrial motions for over 10 months; (2) allowing the State to file and proceed on a Second Amended Motion to Terminate Parental Rights; (3) proceeding with the termination proceedings when insufficient notice was provided to the Indian Tribe; (4) failing to properly apply the Rules of Evidence to an adjudicative hearing and improperly admitting evidence prejudicial to Mario Sr.; (5) finding the State satisfied its burden to prove all statutorily required elements for terminating parental rights under the ICWA; (6) denying Mario’s request for visitation post-termination; and (7) allowing and considering evidence regarding the foster parents’ desire and ability to provide permanency for the children.

Ida assigns that the juvenile court erred by (1) denying Ida’s withdrawal of her relinquishment of her parental rights to her two oldest children; (2) failing to rule on pretrial motions for over 10 months; (3) allowing the State to file and proceed on a Second Amended Motion to Terminate Parental Rights; (4) proceeding with the termination proceedings when insufficient notice was provided to the Indian Tribe; (5) proceeding with the termination proceedings when insufficient notice was provided to Ida; (6) finding the State satisfied its burden to prove all statutorily required elements for terminating parental rights under the ICWA; (7) denying Ida’s request for visitation post-termination; (8) allowing and considering evidence regarding the foster parents’ desire and ability to provide permanency for the children; and (9) failing to properly apply the Rules of Evidence to an adjudicative hearing and improperly admitting evidence prejudicial to Ida.

This page was last modified on Tuesday, May 7, 2013