In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.C. and R.C. (Minor Children) and B.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc., 134 N.E.3d 419

Background

Mother (B.C.) has a long history of substance abuse; two children, J.C. and R.C., were removed after a 2016 overdose and CHINS proceedings; reunification services (therapy, case management, drug screens) were ordered.
Mother’s compliance with services was spotty: missed many visits and drug screens, failed multiple treatment programs, and was unsuccessfully discharged from services; she last saw the children in early 2018.
Mother was arrested March 22, 2018 (drugs and handgun), later pled guilty to cocaine possession and related charges and received partly executed sentence with home detention/probation.
DCS filed termination petitions in March 2018; evidentiary hearings were set for dates beyond the statutory 90/180-day windows; Mother did not object at the setting and affirmatively waived the 180‑day deadline on the record, later moving to dismiss during the third day of hearings.
The trial court admitted drug-test reports (showing several positives), found clear-and-convincing evidence that conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and that termination was in the children’s best interests, and terminated Mother’s parental rights in January 2019.
On appeal Mother argued: (1) hearings exceeded statutory time limits requiring dismissal, (2) drug-test results were inadmissible hearsay, and (3) insufficient evidence supported termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of termination hearings (IC 31-35-2-6)	Mother: hearings weren’t completed within 180 days; dismissal required.	DCS: Mother waived/affirmatively acquiesced to dates and never timely objected.	Court: Mother waived the statutory deadline by failing to object and expressly waiving the 180‑day requirement; no reversible error.
Admissibility of drug-test reports	Mother: lab reports are hearsay and not admissible under business‑records exception.	DCS: reports admissible under business‑records exception (or any error was harmless).	Court: even if improper, admission was harmless because independent evidence overwhelmingly proved drug use; concurrence would admit under business‑records exception.
Sufficiency to establish remedy prong (IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B))	Mother: DCS failed to prove conditions leading to removal would not be remedied.	DCS: long history of missed services, positive tests, conviction, and lack of progress supports reasonable probability of nonremediation.	Court: Unchallenged findings show repeated substance abuse, missed screens, unsuccessful treatment, and conviction—clear and convincing evidence that conditions would not be remedied.
Best interests of the children	Mother: termination not in children’s best interests.	DCS: case manager and GAL recommended termination for permanency; children need stable adoptive home.	Court: Case manager and guardian ad litem testimony plus remedy findings sufficiently establish termination is in children’s best interests.

Key Cases Cited

In re N.C., 83 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (party who acquiesces to hearing date beyond statutory deadline waives objection)
In re J.R., 98 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (amendment adding dismissal consequence made CHINS timing mandatory)
In re T.T., 110 N.E.3d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (timing limits for CHINS hearings are strict; parties cannot waive the ultimate deadline)
In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (drug-test reports excluded under business‑records exception where lab records not shown to be relied upon in ordinary course)
In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2004) (business‑records exception requires reliability, regularity, and that records be the kind an organization relies upon)
Parmeter v. Cass Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 878 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) ("shall" in CHINS timing provision previously interpreted as directory absent explicit sanction)
In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (missing drug screens may support inference of continued use)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard and children’s interests can justify termination)