In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: D.L. (Minor Child) and D.P. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
07A05-1707-JT-1582
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2017Background
- Child D.L., born May 2013, was removed in April–June 2015 after both parents admitted methamphetamine use; Child adjudicated CHINS and placed with maternal grandmother.
- Father was ordered to complete intensive outpatient treatment, submit to random drug screens, and maintain contact with case manager; he repeatedly used methamphetamine, missed/failed to complete programs, and refused most drug screens.
- Father attended a 21-day inpatient program and entered a halfway house briefly but left without notice in June 2016 and then moved away, ceasing regular contact with DCS.
- Father had subsequent criminal incidents (OWI, jail sentence, domestic battery arrest) and admitted further drug use; he attempted suicide in January 2016 after heavy substance use.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights in June 2016; termination hearings were held Nov. 2016 while Father was jailed; the juvenile court terminated Father’s rights in March 2017, finding DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence the removal conditions would not be remedied and termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Father’s long history of continued drug use, failure to complete court-ordered programs, refusal of most drug screens, and habitual conduct show low probability of remedying conditions | Father has taken steps (inpatient treatment, some rehab attendance) and argues it’s unreasonable to conclude conditions won’t be remedied | Court: DCS met clear-and-convincing burden; Father's repeated use, program failures, and refusal of screens show reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Termination is appropriate because the child is thriving with maternal grandmother; case manager and guardian ad litem recommend termination; conditions unlikely to change | Father contends his recovery efforts favor reunification and thus termination is not required | Court: Totality of evidence (recommendations, child’s stable placement, unresolved parental issues) supports termination as in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (standard of review and deference to juvenile court credibility findings in termination appeals)
- In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (termination is an extreme measure used when reasonable efforts fail)
- In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (court must evaluate habitual patterns of conduct and current fitness when assessing remedy of removal conditions)
- In re C.M., 960 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (court must consider changed conditions and not rely solely on historical conduct)
- In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (best-interests inquiry requires looking to the totality of evidence)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (case manager and guardian ad litem recommendations plus proof conditions won’t be remedied can support best-interest finding)