104 N.E.3d 628
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parents (Mother R.O., age 27; Father C.Q., age 79) have long history with DCS including prior CHINS adjudications and substantiated sexual/physical-abuse findings involving the children.
- In Jan 2015, A.Q. presented with severe bruising consistent with physical abuse; parents denied knowledge; A.Q. later disclosed sexual abuse by Father; DCS removed all three children and filed CHINS petitions.
- Parents engaged in services and attended appointments but repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for the 2015 injuries and sexual-abuse disclosures; psychological evaluators and providers found pervasive denial and little therapeutic progress.
- DCS moved to change the permanency plans for all three children from reunification to termination in July 2016; a multi-day permanency hearing ran through July 2017.
- The trial court approved DCS’s change from reunification to termination but continued to offer reunification services; the parents obtained interlocutory certification and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the change was supported by evidence and reiterating that such changes are generally not appropriate for interlocutory review where services continue.
Issues
| Issue | Parent(s)’ Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s order changing permanency plan from reunification to termination is appealable interlocutorily | Parents: order is final enough and prejudicial; they sought immediate review | DCS: interlocutory and premature because plan change does not terminate parental rights or cause actual harm while services continue | Court: generally premature; but because jurisdiction accepted, it reached merits and affirmed on substance; emphasized interlocutory appeal usually not suitable when services continue |
| Sufficiency of evidence to approve change to termination plan | Parents: they were compliant with services; findings of only partial compliance are erroneous | DCS: parents attended services but made no therapeutic progress and refused responsibility for abuse | Held: Evidence supports finding of attendance without meaningful progress; trial court’s findings not clearly erroneous; change upheld |
| Adequacy/reasonableness of reunification services provided | Parents: DCS failed to provide adequate services (e.g., limited contact with A.Q., replacement of providers) | DCS: provided individual, couples, home-based therapy and visitation; replacements occurred in context of long case and conflicting recommendations | Held: Services were reasonable; replaced providers did not negate adequacy given overall record and lack of parental progress |
| Requirement to adopt a concurrent permanency plan | Mother: court should have adopted concurrent plan (reunification + termination) because parents were active in services and termination process may be lengthy | DCS: statute permits but does not require concurrent planning; services continued despite plan change | Held: No statutory mandate to adopt concurrent plan; court’s singular plan was not clearly erroneous and reunification services were not terminated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.F., 797 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (change from reunification to termination is generally not an appealable final judgment because it does not terminate parental rights and parents can contest termination later)
- In re S.K., 57 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (CHINS decisions reviewed for clear error)
- In re D.F., 83 N.E.3d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (appellate standard—do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility; review only evidence supporting trial court)
- Lang v. Starke County Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (parental constitutional right to raise children is not absolute and may be subordinated to children’s interests)