In re the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.N. (Minor Child) and J.F. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
02A05-1610-JT-2361
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Child S.N. (b. May 18, 2010) was adjudicated CHINS after removal in Feb 2015; Father (J.F.) was incarcerated for much of the proceedings.
- Dispositional order required Father to establish paternity (he did), notify DCS upon release, and participate in services; Father failed to notify DCS after release and did not complete ordered services.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights on Jan 29, 2016; Father did not appear at the termination hearing but was represented by counsel.
- Evidence showed Father’s long criminal and substance-abuse history, ongoing methamphetamine use after release, positive drug screens, and possible revocation of community-corrections placement.
- Father had virtually no prior relationship with the Child (one contact when infant), no post-release contact or visitation, and made no demonstrated efforts to remedy removal causes.
- Juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory elements for termination were met (including that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and termination was in the Child’s best interests) and ordered termination; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | DCS: Father’s long criminal/drug history, continued drug use after release, failure to contact DCS or engage in services, lack of relationship with child, and risk of re-incarceration show low probability of remedy | Father: He acknowledged substance problems and expressed desire to parent; had been released only ~2 months and lacked opportunity to complete services while incarcerated | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports finding conditions unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether continuation of the parent–child relationship posed a threat to child’s well-being | DCS: Child needs stability, is improving in pre-adoptive placement; Father’s instability and substance use threaten child | Father: Wanted more time to improve and participate; claimed intent to be involved | Court: Not necessary to decide (disjunctive standard) because first prong proved; termination still found in child’s best interests |
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interests | DCS: Testimony from caseworker, GAL, CASA, and evidence of child’s progress in foster/pre‑adoptive home support termination for permanency and stability | Father: Claimed efforts/intent to change and be present in child’s life; requested more time | Court: Held termination is in child’s best interests given child’s need for permanency and Father’s noncompliance and lack of contact |
| Procedural sufficiency / appellate standard | DCS: Juvenile court findings supported by record; appellate court should not reweigh credibility | Father: Challenged overall sufficiency of evidence | Court: Affirmed; applied clear-and-convincing standard and deferred to trial court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but may be terminated to protect the child)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 2001) (parental rights are not absolute and may be subordinated to child’s interests)
- In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate review in termination cases: do not reweigh evidence; two-tiered review when findings are entered)
- In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (§ 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is disjunctive; proving any one prong suffices)
- McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court may consider criminal history, substance abuse, failure to support, and response to services when assessing remedy probability)
- In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (framework for determining what conditions led to removal and whether they can be remedied)