A.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 693
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- A.G. born July 5, 2013, suffered severe neonatal drug withdrawal; removed from Mother and placed in foster care immediately; DCS adjudicated CHINS and retained custody.
- Father was incarcerated in multiple jurisdictions before and after A.G.’s birth, had never met or cared for A.G., and paternity was not DNA-confirmed until September 15, 2014 (A.G. ~14 months old).
- After paternity confirmation, DCS could not place A.G. with Father because Father remained incarcerated; A.G. lived with the same foster parents his entire life (about 18 months) prior to termination.
- DCS filed to terminate parental rights; evidentiary hearing recommended termination by the case manager and CASA; trial court terminated Father’s rights based on incarceration, lack of contact/support, and extensive criminal history.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) statutory removal time requirement not met because paternity was recently established, (2) insufficient evidence that conditions leading to removal will not be remedied, and (3) termination not in child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCS’s/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15-of-22-month removal clock is measured from removal from a particular parent’s home or from the child’s home | Father: Clock should start when child was removed from Father (i.e., after paternity established), so the 15-month requirement wasn’t met | DCS: Clock measures time child has been out of his home under agency supervision, not time since removal from a particular parent | Held: Statute refers to the child’s home/time under DCS; requirement met because A.G. was in foster care ~18 months |
| Whether conditions leading to removal are unlikely to be remedied | Father: Insufficient evidence father cannot remedy conditions | DCS/Trial Ct.: Father’s long and recurring incarceration, lack of contact/support, and criminal history show low likelihood of remedy | Held: Evidence supports a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child’s well‑being | Father: Continuation would not threaten child | DCS/Trial Ct.: Father’s absence and instability pose risk and impede permanency | Held: Trial court reasonably found termination appropriate on safety/ permanency grounds |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Father: Insufficient evidence termination advances A.G.’s interests | DCS/Trial Ct.: CASA and case manager recommended termination; permanence with foster family favored | Held: Totality of evidence supports that termination is in A.G.’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (parental liberty interest and standards for termination)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (incarceration is one factor; evaluate parent’s efforts/program completion and parent-child contact)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (removal occurs when DCS retains child in foster care rather than placing with parent)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis for whether removal conditions will be remedied)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (case manager and child advocate recommendations support best‑interests finding)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of fundamental parental liberty interest)
- Phelps v. Sybinsky, 736 N.E.2d 809 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (fifteen‑month rule promotes permanency and adoption)