E.F. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 79A02-1602-JT-444

Background

Mother began heroin use in early adulthood; Child was born March 9, 2014, testing positive for opiates and exhibiting neonatal withdrawal. DCS filed a CHINS petition and Child was placed in foster care.
Mother admitted to CHINS allegations; court ordered services. Over 18 months, Mother’s participation had three phases: initial sporadic engagement with repeated relapses; a six-month period of successful treatment, employment, housing, and clean drug screens; then decline with missed screens, relapse, missed appointments, behavioral incidents, and suspension of visitation.
Mother twice left or failed to complete rehab early, later completed detox/residential and IOP but did not engage in recommended relapse-prevention services through WVA; claimed NA attendance but produced no corroboration.
In the six months before the TPR hearing Mother missed multiple drug screens, had positive tests/admitted relapse (including use of “spice”), lost case management services for nonparticipation, had housing/utility instability, and engaged in an incident that led to suspension of visits.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights in August 2015; after a hearing the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied, (2) continuation of the parent–child relationship threatened the child’s well-being, (3) termination was in the child’s best interests, and (4) DCS had a satisfactory permanency plan (adoption by foster parents). The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether conditions that led to removal are likely to be remedied	Mother’s relapse pattern, missed drug screens, failure to engage in relapse prevention, unstable housing/finances, and declining participation show low probability of sustained remediation	Mother had completed detox/IOP, obtained housing and employment, attended NA, and made substantial progress during a six-month period	Court: There is a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied; affirmed
Whether continuation of the parent–child relationship would threaten child’s well-being	Ongoing substance abuse, instability, missed visits, and behavioral incidents posed risk to child	Mother argued recent progress and love for child mitigate risk	Court: Continuation posed a threat; affirmed
Whether termination is in child’s best interests	Child needs permanency after 18 months in foster care; service providers favored termination given Mother’s regression	Mother argued she loves child and had periods of progress supporting reunification	Court: Best interests favor termination; affirmed
Whether DCS had a satisfactory plan for child’s care	DCS proposed adoption by foster parents with whom child was bonded	Mother argued guardianship with paternal grandparents was feasible	Court: DCS’s general plan for adoption/permanency was satisfactory; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard for appellate review of termination orders)
In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (deference to trial court on termination findings)
Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when trial court enters findings)
Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (clearly erroneous standard for findings)
In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (parental rights as protected liberty interest)
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step analysis for whether removal conditions will be remedied)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (weighing recent improvements against habitual conduct in termination analysis)
A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (factors courts may consider in termination cases)
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (caseworker/CASA recommendations weigh in best-interests analysis)
In re S.L.H.S., 885 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (DCS need only provide general direction of permanency plan)