In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.Y. and G.Y. (Minor Children) and D.Y. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
79A05-1609-JT-2160
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Father (D.Y.) and Mother have two children, K.Y. (b. 2012) and G.Y. (b. 2013); children were removed in Dec. 2014 after mother left them with an aunt who had a seizure and the children tested positive for methamphetamine.
- DCS filed CHINS petitions; parents adjudicated CHINS after stipulations including parental substance use and Father’s incarceration.
- Father has a long criminal history and has been incarcerated for the entire proceedings; earliest projected release was September 14, 2017.
- Father participated in some in‑custody programs (some for time cuts) and sent limited mail/phone/video contacts through Mother but never requested DCS or the court to approve regular phone/video or in‑person parenting time.
- DCS recommended termination and the CASA supported adoption and permanency, testifying delay would harm the young children.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence that (1) conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied, (2) continuation threatened the children’s well‑being, (3) termination was in the children’s best interests, and (4) adoption was a satisfactory plan; father's parental rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father/D.Y.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Father’s incarceration, lengthy criminal history, lack of meaningful contact, and failure to secure suitable relatives make remediation unlikely | Father pointed to program participation and compared his efforts to the father in In re K.E., arguing insufficient evidence of non‑remediability | Affirmed — substantial evidence (habitual criminal conduct, minimal in‑person contact, reliance on time‑cut programs, plan to reunite with mother who uses meth) supported finding of likely non‑remedy |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Children need permanency; father cannot provide stability given incarceration, reoffending risk, and plan to live with mother who still uses meth | Father argued the court failed to credit findings favoring him and termination was premature | Affirmed — court may subordinate parental interests; totality of evidence supports termination to secure permanency |
| Whether DCS presented a satisfactory plan for the children (adoption) | Adoption is an appropriate, satisfactory plan for care and treatment | Father did not meaningfully challenge the plan beyond asking for more favorable findings | Affirmed — trial court’s finding that adoption is a satisfactory plan was supported and father’s request to reweigh evidence denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and clear‑and‑convincing evidence requirement in termination cases)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (review of termination findings and judgments)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two‑step analysis identifying removal conditions and assessing likelihood of remedy)
- In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (distinguishing facts where incarceration and strong voluntary efforts supported reversal)
- In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (habitual criminal conduct relevant to risk of future neglect)
- In re A.W., 62 N.E.3d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (procedure for evaluating remedy of removal conditions)
- In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (historical inability to provide suitable environment supports best‑interests finding)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (totality of evidence and service providers’ testimony in best‑interests analysis)
- R.J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 56 N.E.3d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (only one subsection of termination statute’s subsection (B) need be proven)