C.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
15 N.E.3d 85
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother and Father were married with three children: C.A., M.A., and L.A., who were removed from the home after the parents’ arrest for drug offenses in 2012.
- DCS placed the children in foster care and petitioned CHINS; the trial court adjudicated them CHINS in March 2012 and issued dispositional orders requiringGoal-directed services, housing, income, sobriety, counseling, and regular visits.
- Mother pled guilty to class D felony neglect in 2012; Father was convicted of class B felony methamphetamine dealing and sentenced to a lengthy term with some potential early release alternatives.
- Over time, Mother obtained employment, attended counseling, and showed some progress, but she ultimately moved residences, missed visits, and relapsed on drugs;
- Therapists described the children as traumatized with PTSD; the children showed progress in foster care, performing well academically, and forming attachments to foster parents.
- In December 2013, the trial court terminated both parents’ rights to all three children, finding the conditions likely not to be remedied, a threat to well-being, best interests favored termination, and adoption by foster parents as a satisfactory plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination was properly supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: evidence supports likelihood conditions won’t be remedied. | Mother: insufficient or procedurally flawed process undermines termination. | Supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the conditions leading to removal will be remedied | Mother shows inability to sustain housing, sobriety, and engagement with services. | Mother argues potential for future improvement, possibly with stable housing and therapy. | Not remedied; conditions persist |
| Whether continued parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children | Mother’s living situation and relapse threaten safety and well-being; Father’s incarceration and PTSD risks. | Father argues incarceration limits ability to parent and may be resolved with early release; Mother argues reunification time should be considered. | Yes, poses threat; termination warranted |
| Whether termination is in the best interests of the children | Totality of evidence, including professional recommendations, favors termination for stability and safety. | Family ties and efforts toward reunification weigh against termination; foster care stability disputed. | In best interests to terminate |
| Whether a satisfactory plan for the care of the children exists | Adoption by foster parents provides a stable, safe plan. | Plan may be imperfect but adequate given evidence of risk if returned. | Satisfactory plan exists through adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (termination as last resort; requires substantial evidence)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear and convincing standard; determine remedied conditions)
- In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (habits and future conduct considered)
- J.M. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 802 N.E.2d 40 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (two-tier review; deference to trial court findings)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (incarceration and stability impact on reunification)
- H.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 959 N.E.2d 272 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (evidence of bond vs. safety concerns in foster placement)