In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.D.A. and N.A. (Minor Children) and I.A. (Mother) and D.A. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.), 11A01-1604-JT-877

Two children (born 2011 and 2014) were removed from Mother and Father in Feb 2014 and adjudicated CHINS due to severely deplorable home conditions (trash, animal carcass, feces, no running water, disrepair). Children remained out of parental care through the termination proceedings.
DCS provided services (home, parenting, mental health), but parents made only short-lived improvements; housing repeatedly returned to unsafe condition.
Mother has diagnoses (ADHD, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline traits, mild cognitive limitations), anger-control problems, inconsistent medication compliance, and poor retention of parenting/homemaking skills.
Father has a long criminal history with multiple incarcerations, methamphetamine use, probation violations, and inconsistent visitation due to incarceration.
Trial court found DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the conditions leading to removal would likely not be remedied, (2) continuation of the parent-child relationship endangered the children, (3) termination was in the children’s best interests, and (4) DCS’s plan was adoption. Court terminated both parents’ rights; both appealed.

Issue	Mother (Plaintiff) Argument	Father (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether DCS proved a reasonable probability the conditions causing removal will not be remedied	Mother argued evidence did not support finding that conditions would not be remedied, pointing to recent short-term clean housing	DCS/Trial court relied on pattern of repeated relapse to deplorable housing, mental-health and parenting deficits, and minimal lasting progress	Held: Sufficient evidence supports finding parents’ habitual conduct predicts future inability to remedy conditions; upheld.
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Mother argued DCS failed to show children would not do as well in her care and no irreversible harm shown	DCS relied on need for permanency, CASA and case manager recommendations, long time in foster care, and Mother’s limited progress	Held: Totality of evidence supports termination as in children’s best interests; upheld.
Whether Father’s due process rights/fundamental error based on alleged insufficient specificity of the termination petition	Father argued petition merely tracked statute and failed to give specific notice of reasons for termination; claimed fundamental error on appeal	DCS noted Father was on notice from CHINS proceedings and had opportunity to be heard; court found no authority requiring greater specificity and low risk of error	Held: No fundamental error; Father had notice and opportunity to be heard; claim fails.

In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (DCS must prove each statutory element by clear and convincing evidence)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (trial court may weigh history more heavily than short-term improvements when predicting future parental fitness)
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step analysis identifying conditions that led to removal and whether they will be remedied)
In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (due-process balancing for termination proceedings focuses on risk of error from State’s procedure)
C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review is highly deferential; do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process framework: meaningful opportunity to be heard; balancing test)
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (totality of evidence and recommendations from caseworker/CASA can support best-interests finding)