People ex rel. Schmulbach v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that waiver of counsel and decision to proceed pro se at an earlier stage of a CHINS proceeding does, not work a permanent waiver of right to appointed counsel upon a petition for termination of parental rights
• acknowledging that the denial of the right to counsel in such cases requires reversal; a showing of prejudice is not required
• explaining the balance struck by the Mathews factors “must provide ‘the opportunity to be heard . . . in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333)
• stating it was not necessary for mother to show prejudice from the denial of her statutory right to counsel in a CHINS proceeding because “the denial itself was a prejudice requiring a reversal”
• finding, inter alia , that Ind. Code § 31-34-4-6 provides a statutory right to court appointed counsel for a parent in a CHINS case if the parent requests the appointment of counsel and the trial court finds the parent to be indigent
• “[W]e have never held that a litigant who elects to waive the right to counsel is permanently bound by that decision . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).