In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.L. and A.L. (Minor Children), and A.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
91A02-1607-JT-1758
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Mother (A.H.) and Father had two children; both children were removed in June 2014 after hair-follicle tests detected methamphetamine and prior CHINS history existed for the older child.
- Mother has a long history of methamphetamine use, prior convictions (including neglect and possession), multiple arrests/incarcerations, unstable housing and employment, and prior CHINS proceedings involving the older child.
- DCS ordered services (substance-abuse assessment, IOP, random drug screens, stable housing/employment) and initially sought reunification; Mother repeatedly failed to complete treatment and missed or refused many drug screens, testing positive through November 2015 and refusing testing thereafter.
- The children were placed with paternal grandparents (prospective adoptive placement) and were doing well there; Father voluntarily terminated his parental rights before the final hearing.
- DCS petitioned to change permanency to adoption and filed to terminate Mother's parental rights; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to both children; Mother appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions that led to removal will be remedied | Mother argued she recently made progress (ended relationship with Father, attending NA/IOP, no recent positive tests) and could remedy conditions | DCS argued Mother’s long history of relapse, treatment failures, continued positive tests, refusals to test, instability, and recent criminality showed low prospect of remediation | Court held trial court did not err: reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied given history and recent conduct |
| Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat | Mother argued no physical abuse and recent efforts reduce threat | DCS argued habitual substance abuse, instability, and criminality create reasonable probability of future neglect/deprivation | Court held threat prong met (though only one prong needed), based on habitual patterns and risk to children |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Mother argued termination was premature and would cut her off; recent improvements support reunification | DCS argued children’s stability with grandparents, case manager and GAL recommendations, and Mother’s failure to sustain progress favor termination | Court held termination was in children’s best interests given totality of evidence and children’s placement stability |
| Whether DCS proved required statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued evidence insufficient | DCS argued clear-and-convincing evidence established at least one statutory ground, best interests, and a plan for care | Court held DCS met its burden and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear-and-convincing standard and risk to child’s development suffices for termination)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (parental interests subordinate to child’s interests in termination proceedings)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (court may disregard short-term efforts made shortly before termination)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (assessing parent’s fitness at time of hearing while considering changed circumstances)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (substance abuse and failure to participate in treatment support finding conditions will not be remedied)
- In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (deferential standard of review in termination cases)