In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.C., Minor Child, and S.J., Father, S.J. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1602-JT-367
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Child born Oct 2013; removed May 2014 after mother incarcerated; father was incarcerated for meth possession at removal and remained in DOC until Sept 10, 2015.
- DCS filed CHINS petition May 23, 2014; CHINS dispositional order in Aug 2014; permanency plan changed to adoption in Feb 2015.
- DCS filed TPR petition March 2, 2015; father released Sept 2015 and was ordered to complete substance‑abuse assessment, home‑based case management, parenting assessment, father engagement program, and random drug screens.
- Father attended some DOC programs but failed to provide verification to DCS, relapsed on meth in Oct 2015, violated parole, and was jailed Dec 2015–mid‑Jan 2016; visitation was suspended after a positive drug screen.
- Child lived continuously with a maternal cousin (pre‑adoptive placement) during proceedings; case managers and GAL recommended adoption by that caregiver.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights Feb 1, 2016; father appealed arguing insufficient evidence on remedial probability and best interests.
Issues
| Issue | DCS's Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied | Father had a pattern of substance abuse, incarceration, minimal engagement in services, recent relapse, unstable housing/employment → reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied | Father’s incarceration (now ended) prompted removal; he had participated in DOC treatment and only had ~4 months post‑release to complete services, so conditions were being remedied | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported finding conditions unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interests | Child had stability with pre‑adoptive relative; case manager and GAL recommended adoption; father had minimal bond and ongoing substance/parole issues | Father argued DCS mischaracterized his engagement in services and that recent improvements show fitness | Affirmed — totality of evidence supported termination as in child’s best interests |
| Whether a satisfactory permanency plan existed | DCS’s plan was adoption by long‑term caregiver (maternal cousin) | Father challenged plan but offered no developed argument | Affirmed — plan found satisfactory (father waived meaningful challenge) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (deferential review of termination findings; weigh changed conditions against habitual conduct)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are constitutional but may be terminated for failure to meet parental responsibilities)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step test for whether removal conditions will be remedied)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality of evidence and recommendations by case manager/GAL can establish best interests)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear and convincing standard for TPR)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court may prioritize child's right to timely permanency over a parent’s eventual rehabilitation)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (incarceration alone is insufficient for termination where parent makes substantial rehabilitative efforts)