In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of Ti.C., Tr.C., and Th.C. (Children) and D.C. (Mother) and R.C. (Father) D.C., and R.C. v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)
85A02-1602-JT-252
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Three children (Ti.C., Tr.C., Th.C.) were removed from D.C. (Mother) and R.C. (Father) in Feb. 2012 after police responded to a domestic violence call and DCS found the home in unsanitary, hazardous condition and the children educationally neglected.
- DCS adjudicated the children CHINS; dispositional orders required therapy, supervised visitation, and services. Children reported physical and mental abuse by Parents to counselors.
- Over time therapists, CASA, and DCS observed the children were anxious, fearful, and unwilling to engage with Parents; visitation and family therapy were suspended in June 2014.
- DCS sought termination of parental rights; termination hearings spanned 12 days in 2015. Two children testified about repeated physical discipline (ties, belts, spoons), food withholding, and fear of returning.
- The trial court found physical and mental abuse occurred, Parents failed to accept responsibility or make appreciable progress, children suffered significant harm and wanted no contact, and concluded by clear and convincing evidence termination met statutory requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court bias | Judge’s remarks were courtroom management, did not deny due process | Judge was biased, statements showed predetermined outcome and denied due process | Court found remarks showed frustration but not partiality; no due process violation |
| Agency/service-provider bias | DCS and providers acted to protect children; services were provided and suspended when harmful | DCS and providers were biased, alienated children, disclosed adoption, undermining reunification | Court held DCS/providers were not biased; record showed services were offered and suspension was supported by therapists/CASA |
| Sufficiency of evidence that conditions won’t be remedied | Children’s testimony, therapy reports, CASA, and deplorable home conditions support reasonable probability problems won’t be remedied | Parents say they remedied home, met educational needs, complied with services and blamed DCS | Court held unchallenged findings supported conclusion by clear and convincing evidence that conditions would not be remedied and termination was in children’s best interests |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s alleged failures did not render trial fundamentally unfair | Counsel slept, failed to communicate, failed to pursue motions/subpoenas, prejudiced Parents | Court held trial was fundamentally fair; counsel’s performance did not undermine confidence in result |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened due process and burden of proof required in parental termination cases)
- Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2000) (trial judge remarks — impatience permissible unless showing of partiality)
- Baker v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2004) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims in parental-rights terminations)
- In re N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2016) (appellate review standards in termination cases; do not reweigh evidence)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (parental rights and accuracy of court decision; review principles)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-tiered review of findings and conclusions in termination decisions)
- Neal v. DeKalb Cty. Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental interest)