In Re CG
954 N.E.2d 910
| Ind. | 2011Background
- C.G. was born in 2000 to Z.G. (Mother); DCS filed CHINS and later sought termination of parental rights.
- In 2008 Mother left Child in Utah and was incarcerated; Child was placed in foster care after hospital treatment for alleged sexual abuse.
- DCS assigned two family case managers; attempts to locate Mother were made via jails, databases, and directories; Mother located in Henderson, Kentucky later.
- Mother communicated with DCS by letters in 2008–2009; she did not name a father or specific relatives for placement and offered various potential placements that were not pursued.
- DCS filed termination petition on March 25, 2009; Mother was served by mail at a federal jail and participated telephonically; trial court terminated parental rights on January 11, 2010; Child subsequently adopted by foster parents.
- Court acknowledged several DCS missteps but held no due process violation warranted reversal; court adopted West Virginia’s test for incarcerated parents’ attendance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service and notice violations tainted termination | Mother contends improper service increased risk of error. | DCS locates via multiple channels; no substantial risk increased by any error. | No reversible due process error; service deemed sufficient |
| Whether DCS’s contact with Mother and delays in advising rights violated due process | Delays deprived Mother of timely counsel and CHINS proceedings. | Delays were not fundamental error given incarceration; Mother was represented and had opportunity to participate. | Delay did not constitute fundamental due process violation |
| Whether incarceration and transportation policy deprived Mother of due process at the termination hearing | Marion County’s no-transport order prevented in-person attendance; telephonic participation insufficient. | Court provided telephonic participation with interpreters; court procedures safeguarded credibility and fairness. | Absent reversible error, termination upheld; no absolute right to in-person attendance |
| Whether the evidence supports termination under Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 | DCS proved conditions not likely to be remedied or continuation would threaten Child; best interests favor termination. | Mother contends insufficient or misinterpreted evidence; therapy and placement facts challenge termination. | Evidence supported findings; termination upheld and adoption appropriate |
| Whether the evidence supports best interests and permanency plan for Child | Termination provides permanency through adoption; ongoing reunification not in Child’s best interest. | Child has bonded with foster family; further delay would harm stability and therapy. | Termination in Child’s best interests; adoption planned |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process requires fundamental fairness in parental termination)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor balancing test for due process procedures)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (parental rights require careful consideration in termination)
- In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (termination as last resort and standard appellate review)
- Tillotson v. Clay County Dep't of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (parent not absolutely entitled to be present; alternatives exist)
- State ex rel. Jeanette H. v. Ruth Anne E., 529 S.E.2d 877 (W.Va. 2000) (multifactor test balancing incarcerated parent attendance)
- In re L.V., 240 Neb. 404 (Neb. 1992) ( Nebraska factors guiding attendance at termination hearings)
- In re C.G., 885 P.2d 355 (Colo. App. 1994) (depicts dependency/termination considerations)
- In re Adoption of B.J.M., 42 Kan. App. 2d 77 (Kan. App. 2009) (transportation impact on termination outcomes)