In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.S., (Minor Child), and R.S. (Father) v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
2016 Ind. LEXIS 578
| Ind. | 2016Background
- Father and mother are parents of R.S., II; CHINS proceeding pending; Father incarcerated with prior no-contact order dispute; ongoing visitation after guardianship arrangement with Grandmother; DCS sought termination based on best interests and permanency; trial court concluded termination was in R.S.'s best interests despite bond and Father’s progress; appellate court affirmed, and Supreme Court granted transfer to reverse.
- During CHINS, Father maintained contact with R.S. and provided financial support; Father completed multiple courses and probation successfully; there was confusion about a no-contact order, delaying Father’s parenting time; GAL and DCS favored adoption by Grandmother for permanency.
- Trial court found termination necessary to achieve permanency; findings noted bond and visitation but concluded continued parent-child relationship would threaten R.S.’s well-being.
- Court ultimately held that the trial court’s findings did not clearly and convincingly support termination as in R.S.’s best interests; despite Father’s progress, bond with R.S. and potential for reunification warranted reversal of termination; viable guardianship option discussed if reunification fails in future.
- Key holdings emphasize that parent rights are fundamental, and termination requires clear and convincing evidence that best interests are served; court stresses not reaching last resort absent reasonable efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in R.S.'s best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Father has bond with R.S. and has progressed. | DCS and trial court found termination necessary for permanency. | No; findings do not clearly support best interests. |
| Does the record show termination serves permanency without harming R.S.? | Continued relationship could aid permanency. | Permanency through adoption by Grandmother. | Not clearly; permanency concerns not outweighed by bond evidence. |
| Was there a satisfactory plan for care after termination? | Adoption by Grandmother provides permanency. | Plan insufficient if parental rights terminated. | Not reached due to lack of clear best-interests support. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (two-tier review; clear and convincing standard)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (considerations for reintegration vs. guardianship; permanency factors)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (must prove four statutory elements; best-interests paramount)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (termination is last resort; requires continued reasonable efforts)
- Rowlett (dissent), - (-) (discussion of guardian options; emphasis on reunification potential)
- Bester v. Lake Co. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental liberty interest; fundamental right to care and custody)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (1999) (fundamental liberty interest in parenting)