In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: W.H. (Minor Child) and G.H. (Mother) & D.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
74A01-1606-JT-1553
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- W.H., born August 18, 2014, tested positive for methamphetamine; both parents also tested positive and admitted methamphetamine use. DCS filed a CHINS petition and W.H. was removed and placed with foster parents.
- Parents admitted CHINS allegations, lived locally, were permitted frequent visitation but attended only about five times over the case and did not complete recommended services (counseling/substance-abuse treatment).
- DCS pursued relative placement inquiries early; paternal grandmother (S.S.) delayed action on paperwork until October 2015 and DCS had no record of receiving it; DCS testimony described other relatives as unsuitable for placement.
- On September 17, 2015, DCS filed a verified petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights; an evidentiary hearing occurred April 5, 2016 (parents absent); juvenile court terminated rights on May 31, 2016.
- The juvenile court found (among termination elements) that DCS presented a satisfactory plan for W.H.’s care (adoption) and that conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied; parents appealed solely arguing the plan was not satisfactory because DCS failed to consider relative placement.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | DCS/Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS presented a "satisfactory plan" for the child’s care and treatment | D.H. and G.H.: plan not satisfactory because DCS failed to consider relative placement before pursuing termination | DCS: it did consider relatives, explained needed steps to paternal relatives, and adoption is a satisfactory plan even if relatives are unsuitable or did not timely act | Court affirmed: finding of a satisfactory plan not clearly erroneous; DCS both considered relatives and was not statutorily required to exhaust relative placement before termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (termination is a last-resort remedy)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (state must prove termination elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for termination findings; do not reweigh evidence)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (satisfactory plan need not be detailed; adoption can be sufficient)
- In re B.M., 913 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (DCS not required by termination statute to consider relative placement before filing to terminate parental rights)