In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.W., K.K., Ke.K., & L.W. and J.K. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 262

DCS filed CHINS petitions for four children in 2009 after Mother’s substantial instability and substance abuse, with Father incarcerated at that time.
L.W. was born in 2010 with neonatal withdrawal; DCS later CHINS'ed L.W. and placed all children in foster care.
Father completed some assessments and services but repeatedly failed to attend or comply with substance-abuse treatment and court-ordered programs.
From late 2010 to early 2011, Father sporadically engaged in drug testing, visits, and counseling, with multiple positive drug screens or missed tests.
In 2011, Father disappeared for several months, became homeless or unstable, and did not inform the family case manager of his contact information.
In August–September 2011, the trial court terminated both parents’ rights; court found a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was proper based on remedy of conditions.	DCS: conditions leading to removal would not be remedied.	Father: not responsible for initial removal; the conditions for removal would be remedied, or not his fault.	Termination affirmed; conditions not reasonably remediable; substantial noncompliance and ongoing substance abuse.

In re J.S.O., 938 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest; parental rights yield to children's best interests in termination)
In re J.H., 911 N.E.2d 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (parental rights may be terminated when parents unable or unwilling to meet responsibilities)
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (judge fitness at termination hearing; evaluate habitual patterns of conduct)
C.T. v. Marion Cnty. Dept. of Child Services, 896 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (need to assess probability of future neglect; not required to rule out all change possibilities)
In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (remedial probability may be shown by likelihood parent will not change behavior)
In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statutory interpretation of § 31-35-2-4; disjunctive vs. conjunctive reading)
In re S.B., 896 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (presume legislature acts logically to achieve statute’s goals)