In re: Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: L.B. (Minor Child), and T.B., (Mother) and J.L. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
48A05-1703-JT-719
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- L.B., born July 2014, has Bardet–Biedl syndrome and extensive medical needs (gastric tube, frequent hospitalizations, multiple specialists, therapies). She was placed with maternal grandmother (Grandmother) after DCS filed CHINS petitions due to parental substance use and positive drug tests at birth.
- Mother repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine and THC from 2015–2016, had intermittent incarceration and criminal convictions, failed to complete court-ordered services, and had only limited, sporadic supervised visitation with L.B.
- Father initially resisted paternity testing, was later confirmed as father, but showed minimal participation in reunification services, refused continued drug screens, and engaged in threatening/erratic conduct that led to criminal charges and no-contact/protective orders preventing contact with L.B.
- DCS filed to terminate both parents’ rights on June 9, 2016. Trial hearings occurred in December 2016 and January 2017; the court entered findings and terminated parental rights on March 2, 2017.
- Trial court found continuation of the parent–child relationship posed a threat to L.B., citing parents’ habitual substance abuse, criminality, instability, failure to remedy conditions, and inability to provide specialized care; Grandmother sought to adopt and provided stable, specialized care.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported termination because continuation of the parent–child relationship posed a threat to the child | Mother argued recent completion of inpatient treatment and halfway-house placement showed changed conditions and progress | Father argued his conduct was not shown to pose a threat, DCS was biased, and no-contact orders improperly foreclosed reunification | Court held evidence (longstanding substance abuse, criminality, unstable conduct, failure to complete services, and child’s special needs) supported finding that continuation posed a threat |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Mother argued her recent treatment progress favored preserving parental rights | Father argued due process and opportunity to remedy issues were impaired by DCS actions and pending criminal/legal options | Court held testimony from DCS and CASA, child’s need for permanency, and stability with Grandmother established termination was in L.B.’s best interests |
| Whether the trial court improperly ignored changed conditions | Mother contended court undervalued recent, limited compliance | Father contended additional psychological services should have been offered/required | Court found the trial court reasonably weighed long-term patterns over short-term, court-ordered compliance and did not err in discounting limited recent changes |
| Procedural due process / bias concerns | Mother did not raise a separate due-process claim on these grounds | Father alleged DCS bias and prejudicial testimony limited his ability to reunify | Court rejected the claim—no reversible procedural error; father remained responsible for seeking services and remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental liberty interest and standard for reviewing termination)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (consider parent’s habitual conduct and changed conditions)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (child’s need for permanency is central in best-interest analysis)
- Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (DCS must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (value of parent–child relationship)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (termination appropriate before irreversible harm occurs)
- In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality of evidence and weight of caseworker/CASA recommendations in best-interest determination)
- In re N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (procedural requirement for findings in termination orders)