In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.P. & Au.P. M.H. & T.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 563

A.P. (2007) and Au.P. (2008) were found to be CHINS with respect to M.H. and T.P.;
M.H. and T.P. were not married; paternity established for both children;
In 2010, M.H. tested positive for methamphetamine; SDCS removed children and placed with maternal grandparents;
Trial court adjudicated CHINS for both parents; SDCS wardship and supervision placed;
Mother struggled with methamphetamine use; numerous drug screens with multiple positives;
In 2011, SDCS petitioned for termination; trial court terminated parental rights on January 18, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is clear and convincing evidence Mother’s rights should be terminated	Mother contends continued parental rights are not a threat or best interests require less drastic action	SDCS asserts Mother’s pattern of drug use and failure to remediate justify termination	Termination affirmed for Mother
Whether there is clear and convincing evidence Father’s rights should be terminated	Father argues no nexus shown between his conduct and child well-being or best interests	SDCS asserts Father's pattern of neglect and lack of participation justify termination	Termination affirmed for Father

In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (two-tier standard; consider evidence and credibility)
Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parenteal rights terminate for child protection when necessary)
Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (best interests require subordination of parent to child)
In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (best interests assessment; evidence of parental capacity)
I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (clear and convincing standard; statutory elements)