In Re: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of W.M.L. and A.J.L., R.R. (Guardian ad Litem) v. E.L. (Mother), O.H. (Father)
82 N.E.3d 361
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents E.L. (Mother) and O.H. (Father) had two children (W.L., b.2008; A.H., b.2012); children were removed after Mother's prenatal marijuana use and family homelessness, then again after Father committed domestic battery in 2013.
- Children were adjudicated CHINS; parents were ordered to complete services (substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence programs, home-based services, supervised visitation, stable housing/employment).
- DCS filed petitions in March 2016 to terminate both parents’ parental rights; five-day evidentiary hearing occurred Aug–Nov 2016.
- At hearing: Father completed batterer’s-intervention program, probation, substance-abuse group, maintained steady employment and stable housing, and had no positive drug screens; Mother completed substance-abuse treatment, worked full time, claimed one year free of illegal drugs but used prescribed methadone and had a history of anger/domestic-violence issues.
- Therapist supervising visits testified children bonded with parents, visits were positive, and termination would be detrimental; several service providers reported recent parental progress and no evidence the children could not safely be returned at that time.
- Trial court issued detailed findings that parents had made substantial progress and that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied; court denied termination and ordered consideration of a permanency plan short of severance. GAL Renbarger appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying DCS’s petition to terminate parental rights by finding DCS failed to prove a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied | GAL Renbarger (on behalf of DCS) argued DCS met its burden to show a reasonable probability the conditions (drug use, homelessness, domestic violence) would not be remedied and termination was warranted | Trial court (and parents) argued parents had made substantial, demonstrable progress (treatment completion, stable housing/employment, positive supervised visits), no evidence children couldn’t be safely returned, and termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Court affirmed: evidence most favorable to the judgment supports the trial court’s conclusion that DCS failed to meet its burden; denial of termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest but may be terminated when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step test: identify removal conditions and determine reasonable probability they will not be remedied, balancing changed conditions against habitual conduct)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parental ability at time of factfinding is determinative)
- J.K.C. v. Fountain County Department of Child Welfare, 470 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (courts may consider habitual patterns of conduct when assessing future risk)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (a parent’s desire to remain with a spouse is not alone a basis for denying termination)