In re The Termination of The Parent-Child Relationship of: J.C.M. (Minor Child) and H.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
09A02-1703-JT-640
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Child born Sept. 22, 2013; Mother had recent convictions and was in in‑home detention. Within weeks Mother was hospitalized appearing under the influence and tested positive for multiple controlled substances. DCS filed CHINS and removed the Child.
- Child placed with maternal grandmother; Mother admitted CHINS and was ordered to complete services (substance abuse treatment, home‑based services, drug screens, supervised visitation).
- Mother intermittently engaged in services, had periods of progress (parenting time, trial home visit in late 2015) but after release from in‑home detention in 2016 became difficult to locate, missed visits, failed five drug screens, and had additional arrests and incarcerations.
- DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights (Aug. 31, 2016). At the termination hearing the GAL and case manager recommended termination; the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights (Feb. 23, 2017).
- Mother appealed, arguing the State failed to prove (1) a reasonable probability the conditions causing removal would not be remedied, and (2) termination was in the Child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Mother: She will be released from incarceration, will have no remaining criminal obligations within 14 months, and can address substance abuse and reunify. | DCS: Mother has a long pattern of substance abuse, repeated incarcerations, poor engagement with services, missed visits and positive drug tests showing low likelihood of remedy. | Affirmed: Court found Mother’s pattern of conduct, failure to complete treatment, missed visits, and criminal history support reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied. |
| Whether termination is in the Child’s best interests | Mother: Termination is premature—she loves the Child and will be able to parent upon release. | DCS: Permanency is required; Child has been out of Mother’s care almost entire life and is thriving in foster care; GAL recommends termination. | Affirmed: Court found totality of evidence and GAL recommendation support that termination is in Child’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review—do not reweigh evidence on appeal)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two‑tiered review when trial court issues findings and conclusions)
- In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (termination as last resort; heavy protection of parental rights)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step analysis to determine whether conditions leading to removal will be remedied)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (weigh evidence as to each parent when multiple parents/children involved)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency as central consideration in best‑interest analysis)
- In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (judge parent fitness at time of termination, consider changed conditions)