In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.J. and E.L. (Minor Children), and K.I.J. (Mother) and E.L.L. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
75A03-1706-JT-1321
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother K.I.J. and Father E.L.L.) had two children removed after being found passed out in a car with the children present; children had lice/fleas and were placed in foster care.
- CHINS adjudication (Oct 2015) and dispositional order required substance‑abuse, parenting, psychological assessments, random screens, housing/employment, and compliance with services.
- Father repeatedly failed to complete services, had multiple positive drug screens, frequent incarcerations, never visited the children, and admitted at a permanency hearing he could not stay sober.
- Mother has serious mental‑health diagnoses (schizoaffective/bipolar, severe substance use history), scored highly on a child‑abuse potential test, showed impaired parenting during visits, and the children displayed weak or traumatic bonds with her.
- DCS filed to terminate parental rights (Jan 2017); same counsel represented both parents at the termination hearing; trial court terminated both parents’ rights and they appealed claiming ineffective assistance due to joint representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint representation created ineffective assistance/conflict of interest | Parents: single counsel for both created a conflict that undermined effectiveness and fairness | DCS: joint representation did not create an actual conflict; parents shared interests and counsel’s performance did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair | No ineffective assistance; joint representation posed only a potential, not actual, conflict and did not undermine confidence in the result |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights under I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2) | Parents: argued counsel ineffective; they did not directly challenge factual findings | DCS: clear and convincing evidence showed conditions (substance abuse/mental illness, neglect, lack of bond, failure to complete services) would not be remedied and termination was in children’s best interests | Sufficient independent, clear and convincing evidence supported termination as being in the children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2004) (adopts a Baker standard evaluating whether counsel’s performance undermines confidence in the termination decision rather than Strickland)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process analysis on right to appointed counsel in parental‑termination proceedings)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (parental interests subordinated to child’s best interests in termination cases)
- In re I.B., 933 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 2010) (statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings includes appellate counsel; limits on post‑judgment counsel)
- In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (only one prong of statutory grounds need be proved)
- In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (counsel effective where parent received fundamentally fair trial and court’s determination was accurate)
- Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming counsel’s effectiveness where appellate confidence in trial court’s order was not undermined)