In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.W. (Minor Child), and A.O. (Minor Child) and H.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
03A01-1704-JT-929
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Child R.W. born Oct. 2014; removed Apr. 2015 after parents were homeless and admitted using marijuana and methamphetamine. DCS filed CHINS petition; parents later admitted and child adjudicated CHINS.
- Parents engaged in services intermittently: both completed some treatment but repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine, missed sessions, and were unsuccessfully discharged from outpatient programs; both completed short inpatient stays but continued to test positive afterward.
- Child briefly returned on a trial home visit Sep. 2015 but was removed Oct. 2015 after parents’ positive drug screens; child in relative and then pre-adoptive foster placement since Aug. 2016.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate parental rights July 2016; evidentiary hearing held Dec. 16, 2016; trial court entered a termination order Mar. 31, 2017 terminating both parents’ rights and finding termination was in the child’s best interests.
- The trial court’s order contains detailed factual findings about substance abuse, housing instability, visitation, and placement plan but did not state which statutory prong under I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (probability conditions will not be remedied or continuation poses threat, or prior CHINS adjudications) supported termination.
- The Court of Appeals remanded because the trial court failed to enter the statutorily required ultimate findings/conclusions showing which statutory grounds were proved by clear and convincing evidence, although it did find a satisfactory plan for the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s termination order contained adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by I.C. § 31-35-2-8(c) and § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) | DCS argued facts proved termination elements and that termination was proper and in child’s best interests | Parents argued the order was inadequate because it did not state which statutory prong supported termination and thus prevented proper appellate review | Court held the factual findings were detailed but insufficient: trial court failed to state ultimate conclusions under the statutory prongs, so remand required for specific findings/conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (parental-rights termination protects child’s interests and parents’ constitutional interests are subordinated to child’s welfare)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (statutory framework and burden for termination of parental rights)
- In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (only one prong of § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) need be proved because the subsection is disjunctive)
- In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (remand required where trial court’s factual findings were too sparse to show which statutory considerations supported termination)