In Re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of V.A. (Minor Child), and A.A. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2016 Ind. LEXIS 126
| Ind. | 2016Background
- In 2012 DCS removed V.A., then age 2–3, after Mother (S.A.) exhibited untreated psychotic/mood symptoms and reported being overwhelmed; Father (A.A.) was working and Mother was primary caregiver.
- CHINS adjudication and a dispositional plan sought reunification; DCS implemented a safety plan (Daybreak, Homebuilders, supervised visitation) that Father followed and participated in services.
- DCS eventually changed the plan to termination; after a four-day termination trial the trial court terminated both parents’ rights, finding a reasonable probability the conditions causing removal would not be remedied and termination served the child’s best interests.
- Father appealed, arguing the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show (1) the conditions would not be remedied, (2) continuation of the relationship endangered the child, or (3) termination was in the child’s best interests.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held the State failed to meet the heightened clear-and-convincing standard as to Father, and reversed as to his termination (Mother did not appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied | Mother’s untreated mental illness and Father’s refusal to separate from her meant the conditions would persist | Father complied with the safety plan, participated in services, and his cohabitation with Mother alone is insufficient to show non-remediable conditions | Reversed: DCS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence as to Father; cohabitation with mentally ill spouse, without more, is insufficient |
| Whether continuation of parent–child relationship posed a threat to child’s well‑being | Supervised visits showed emotional turmoil and inability to protect child long‑term | Visits were supervised; only isolated incidents occurred; Father protected child during incidents and took steps required by case plan | Reversed: record did not clearly and convincingly show Father posed a threat |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Permanency via adoption served child’s welfare and GAL recommended termination | Father had stable housing/employment, maintained relationship, complied with plan; permanency alone insufficient to sever rights | Reversed: evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard that termination was in child’s best interests |
| Applicability of heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings | N/A (DCS bears burden) | Emphasized due process and need for fact‑based findings attributable to the parent sought to be terminated | Court applied heightened scrutiny and found trial court’s findings insufficient for Father |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (standard of review and approach to termination appeals)
- Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and harm to child may justify termination)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency interests and evaluation of remedial services)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step analysis: identify removal conditions then assess probability of nonremediation)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (constitutional protection of parental rights and heightened proof requirement)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental liberty interest in childrearing)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)