In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.D.L., K.A.L.J., & K.R.L.L. (Minor Children) and K.D.J., Jr. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
79A05-1705-JT-1151
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Father (K.D.J., Jr.) and Mother were parents of three children adjudicated CHINS after Mother and Stepfather were arrested for intoxication and synthetic drugs; Father was incarcerated at the time.
- Juvenile court ordered reunification services; Father was released from DOC Feb 8, 2016, but had subsequent arrests (violating protective order, possession), intermittent employment, and limited engagement with services.
- DCS referred Father to visitation, case management, and therapy; Father attended sporadically, was discharged from some providers for poor participation, missed 11 drug screens, and tested positive twice.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate parental rights Aug 16, 2016; evidentiary hearings occurred Oct 13, 2016 and Jan 24, 2017.
- Juvenile court found (1) reasonable probability the conditions resulting in removal would not be remedied, (2) continuation of the relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being, and (3) termination was in the children’s best interests; it terminated Father’s parental rights on May 3, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | DCS: Father’s repeated criminality, drug positives, failure to engage in services, unstable housing/employment show low probability of remedy | Father: Recent enrollment in school and full-time work showed changed conditions and capability to care for children | Held: No error — court may weigh habitual conduct and noncompliance more heavily than recent efforts; clear and convincing evidence supports finding of no reasonable probability of remedy |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being | DCS: Father’s instability and failure to remedy conditions endanger children’s need for stability | Father: Argued improvements mitigated any threat | Held: Court concluded threat existed, but appellate decision affirmed termination based on other proved ground (no need to decide this element) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | DCS: Caseworker and guardian recommended termination; children had foster stability for >2 years | Father: Claimed positive changes showed termination was not necessary | Held: Termination found in children’s best interests based on totality of evidence and recommendations |
| Whether trial court’s overall termination order was clearly erroneous | DCS: The evidence met statutory elements by clear and convincing standard | Father: Requested reweighing of positive participation evidence | Held: Not clearly erroneous; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (termination is extreme remedy and last resort)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing burden in termination appeals)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when findings and conclusions are entered)
- A.F. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (permissible factors for assessing likelihood of remedy include criminal history, substance abuse, housing, employment)
- In re M.S., 898 N.E.2d 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (consideration of services offered and parent’s response)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (balancing changed conditions against habitual patterns)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (caseworker and advocate recommendations plus unremedied conditions can establish best interests)