In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.N. (Minor Child), and R.S. (Mother) and A.N. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
90A02-1606-JT-1459
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Daughter was removed in April 2014 after reports and testing showed both parents using/possessing illegal drugs while children were present; DCS filed CHINS and the child was placed outside the home.
- Court-ordered services included supervised visitation, substance-abuse assessments and treatment, random drug testing, home-based case management, and employment/housing verification.
- Throughout the case both parents had sporadic compliance: missed appointments, incomplete substance-abuse treatment, positive drug screens, periods of incarceration, underemployment, and unstable housing.
- DCS changed permanency plan to termination in September 2015; DCS filed to terminate parental rights in July 2015 and a termination hearing was held in December 2015.
- Trial court found (inter alia) parents had not remedied the conditions leading to removal (primarily substance abuse), the child had been in placement over 15 of the last 22 months, a satisfactory adoptive plan existed, and termination was in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DCS/Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied | Parents argued the trial court’s factual conclusions were erroneous and pointed to recent improvements (employment, some negative screens, attendance) | DCS argued parents’ long record of noncompliance, repeated positive drug tests, incomplete treatment, incarceration, and unstable housing show the conditions would not be remedied | Court upheld termination: clear and convincing evidence supports reasonable probability conditions (substance abuse, instability) would not be remedied |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Parents argued improvements and visitation supported reunification | DCS and GAL argued the child needed stability; parents’ pervasive substance abuse, lack of stable income/housing, and failure to complete treatment made termination appropriate | Court held termination was in the child’s best interests; GAL testimony and other evidence supported the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (purpose of termination is child protection; parental rights may be ended when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (parental interests subordinate to child’s interests in termination decisions)
- In re A.K., 924 N.E.3d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (only one prong of statutory subsection need be proved)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear-and-convincing standard does not require proof that custody is inadequate for survival—risk to development suffices)
- In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (deferential appellate review; do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
- J.M. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 802 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (definition of clear error on appeal)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (court must consider parent’s current fitness and changed circumstances, but may discount last-minute efforts)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (trial court may weigh history of conduct over efforts made just before termination)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (substance abuse and failure to complete treatment can support finding conditions will not be remedied)