In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Z.S. (Minor Child), H.M. (Mother) and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
60A01-1607-JT-1552
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.May 4, 2017Background
- Child Z.S. born April 2014 tested positive at birth for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC; DCS removed the child and filed CHINS petition.
- Court ordered both parents to complete substance-abuse services, drug testing, and visitation as part of dispositional plan.
- Father initially engaged but then ceased contact/oct 2014–oct 2015; repeatedly missed tests and when tested was frequently positive for methamphetamine.
- Mother initially engaged but thereafter missed many drug screens, repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine (latest positive March 1, 2016), and had intermittent incarcerations; she ceased services by June 2015.
- DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights December 1, 2015; trial court held a hearing May 16, 2016 and terminated both parents’ rights on June 17, 2016.
- Appeals: Father challenged the best-interests finding; Mother challenged the finding that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and that continuation posed a threat.
Issues
| Issue | Father (T.S.) — Argument | Mother (H.M.) — Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Father argues the court erred; he contends evidence did not support termination as serving Z.S.’s best interests | DCS (responsive position) argued termination was warranted based on lack of progress, untreated meth addiction, and CASA recommendation | Court affirmed: credible evidence (long absence, continued substance use, CASA recommendation) supported best-interests finding |
| Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied / continuation poses threat | Father did not contest this prong on appeal | Mother argues relapse and positive tests did not establish that conditions would not be remedied or that continuation posed a threat | Court affirmed: Mother’s repeated positive tests, missed screens, cessation of services, and incarcerations supported reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (purpose of termination is child protection, not punishment)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (parental interests subordinated to child’s interests in termination decisions)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear-and-convincing showing need only that child’s development is at risk)
- In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (only one prong of I.C. §31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B) need be proved)
- In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate standard: defer to trial court, do not reweigh evidence)
- J.M. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 802 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (definition of clear error in termination context)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (court must consider totality of evidence and child’s best interests)
- Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to visit indicates lack of commitment)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (recent, last-minute efforts may be disregarded; weigh history)
- In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (termination analysis includes reasons for continued placement)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (substance abuse and failure to participate in treatment can support finding conditions will not be remedied)
- In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (parent cannot refuse drug testing then claim lack of proof of continued use)
- Wedding v. Dep’t of Child Servs. of Vanderburgh Cnty., 907 N.E.2d 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (parental behavior during services/visits can bear on termination analysis)