In Re the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.S. and B.S. (Minor Children), And N.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
82A04-1604-JT-815
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 18, 2016Background
- Father and Mother are parents of two daughters; Children were previously removed in 2008 and again in 2014 after homelessness, instability, and parental criminal/legal problems.
- DCS filed CHINS petitions in July 2014; Children were removed from parental custody on August 22, 2014, and placed in foster care.
- The trial court ordered reunification services and a parental participation plan requiring housing, employment, drug screens, supervised visitation, and cooperation with DCS; Father failed to comply with virtually all requirements.
- Father had an extensive criminal history, intermittent incarceration through the case, no stable housing or employment, poor contact with DCS, and attended fewer than half of offered visits; he refused most ordered drug tests and never met with a parent aide.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights in September 2015; after a December 2015 hearing, the trial court terminated Father’s rights, finding reasonable probability conditions causing removal would not be remedied, continuation posed a threat, termination was in the children’s best interests, and a satisfactory adoption plan existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Father failed to engage in services, lacked housing and employment, had criminal history and intermittent incarceration, and did not remedy conditions despite offers of help | Termination premature because Father was incarcerated at the time of the hearing; DCS did not consider or prove how long incarceration would delay reunification or whether Father could remedy conditions after release | Court held DCS presented sufficient evidence; Father’s noncompliance during periods he was not incarcerated showed habitual patterns making remediation unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- S.L. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses parental liberty interest and standards in child welfare cases)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes fundamental parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (on the value of the parent-child relationship and standards for termination)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing termination and requirement that DCS prove statutory elements)
- K.E. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (addresses termination when parent is incarcerated and weight given to programs completed while imprisoned)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (directs assessment of current parental fitness balancing changed conditions and habitual patterns)
- K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (on when children cannot wait indefinitely and evaluating probability of remediation)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clarifies clear-and-convincing evidence standard and review approach)
- A.D.S. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses that DCS must show reasonable probability of nonremediation, not rule out all possible change)
- In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (explains disjunctive statutory grounds for termination)
- In re J.M., 908 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. 2009) (example where termination was denied for incarcerated parents who completed programs and secured post-release plans)