In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.W. and G.S.: H.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
62 N.E.3d 1267
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (H.S.) and Father (G.S.) are married and have two children in the case: A.W. (from a prior relationship) and G.A.S. (their child together). Both children were removed after parents' March 2014 arrests (Mother for heroin possession).
- DCS adjudicated both children CHINS, provided reunification services, and later placed the children in foster care; DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to both children and J.W.’s (A.W.’s biological father) rights to A.W.
- At termination hearings (Mother incarcerated; release date about seven months after hearings), service providers testified parents interacted appropriately with children but had a historically volatile relationship; Mother completed multiple in‑custody treatment programs and AA/NA meetings.
- The trial court denied termination of Father’s rights to G.A.S. but terminated Mother’s rights to both A.W. and G.A.S., noting the risk of sibling separation but approving A.W.’s adoption by foster parents.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of Mother’s rights, finding DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability that the conditions causing removal would not be remedied, and that termination was in the children’s best interests given sibling bond and Mother’s in‑custody rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | DCS (Plaintiff) Argument | Mother (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied (for Mother) | Mother’s history of drug use, positive screens, and repeated probation violations show the conditions will persist and justify termination | Mother made substantial, concrete efforts in prison (therapy, parenting classes, AA/NA, IOP) and was scheduled for imminent release; these efforts show likelihood of remediation | Reversed — DCS failed to meet clear and convincing standard; recent in‑custody efforts undermined finding conditions would not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests (including sibling bond) | Termination promotes children’s safety and DCS’s adoption plan for A.W. is satisfactory | Separation harms children; foster/caseworker testimony favored keeping siblings together; reunification with Father (and Mother) would preserve bond | Reversed — trial court erred: termination was not shown to be in children’s best interests given strong evidence favoring sibling unity and reunification risk |
| Consistency of terminating only one parent’s rights when that parent will reside with the other parent and child post‑release | Statute permits termination of one parent’s rights; court relied on evidence specific to Mother | Terminating Mother’s rights while allowing living contact/reunification with Father and child is internally inconsistent and undermines the finding Mother unlikely to remedy conditions | Reversed — court’s decision to terminate Mother but not Father was incongruous given parents’ intent to live together and undercut the finding that Mother’s conditions were unlikely to improve |
| Weight of post‑removal improvements made shortly before hearing (incarceration rehabilitation) | Court may weigh long‑term history more heavily than recent improvements; past misconduct supports termination | Recent, substantial, documented rehabilitation efforts are strong evidence of ability/willingness to remedy the conditions | Court of Appeals found the trial court did not properly balance recent improvements against past conduct; improvements were sufficient to defeat clear and convincing proof requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (recent prisoner rehabilitation may defeat clear‑and‑convincing proof that removal conditions cannot be remedied)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (appellate review standards for termination; clear‑and‑convincing requirement explained)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two‑step analysis for whether removal conditions will not be remedied: identify conditions, then assess probability of remediation)
- J.C.C. v. State, 897 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. 2008) (definition and explanation of the clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- In re A.G., 45 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (best‑interests analysis requires consideration of totality of circumstances, including sibling bonds)