In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.B.M. and H.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
20 N.E.3d 174
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Father's parental rights to D.B.M. were terminated; he appeals admissibility of ACDCS supervisor Heather Rouns's testimony at the termination hearing.
- Rouns testified about Father's lack of address, housing, and communication with ACDCS, based on the file and records.
- Father objected that the testimony was hearsay and lacked firsthand knowledge; objection was overruled.
- FCM Byers had initial involvement; Byers was on maternity leave; Norris testified later that Father did not comply with services or visit.
- GAL Webber and FCM Norris testified that Father had no relationship with D.B.M. and had not engaged in services or visitation; child thriving in foster care.
- Trial court terminated Father’s rights in April 2014; Father appeals arguing insufficient evidence absent Rouns's testimony; appellate court affirms, finding harmless error and sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Rouns's testimony | Father argues it's hearsay without exception. | ACDCS argues testimony based on records is permissible hearsay; custodian foundation later established. | Harmless error; cumulative evidence supports termination. |
| Sufficiency of evidence under IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) | There is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would be remedied. | Father's lack of contact, services, and housing show conditions would not be remedied. | There is a reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied; termination sustained. |
| Two-step analysis for remedying conditions | Court should rely on conditions at the time of CHINS and any lack of improvement. | Court may weigh past patterns against recent improvements. | Court properly found continued failure to provide for child; supports termination. |
| Best interests and permanence | Termination serves child's best interests given lack of parental involvement. | Paternal rights should be preserved if possible. | Best interests met; termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.J., 877 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (admission of evidence within the trial court’s discretion; harmless error if cumulative)
- In re Paternity of H.R.M., 864 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (harmful error unless harmless; cumulative evidence considered)
- K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (clear and convincing standard; two-step remedy analysis)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)