In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.T., Father, and L.T., Child, K.T. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1607-JT-1551
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Child (born Nov. 2010) was adjudicated CHINS after Mother tested positive for drugs; Father waived fact-finding and was adjudicated CHINS in Mar. 2014.
- Court-ordered services for Father included a Father Engagement Program, random drug screens, substance-abuse assessment, home-based therapy, and case management; Father completed the Father Engagement Program but largely failed to comply with other ordered services.
- In May 2015 Father was arrested with Child in the car after marijuana was found; he later pled guilty to a felony dealing charge and a misdemeanor and was jailed Feb.–May 2016.
- DCS repeatedly documented Father’s noncompliance (missed drug screens, inconsistent contact, suspensions of visitation, living in a home that jeopardized placement), and changing placements for Child; DCS changed permanency plan to adoption in Nov. 2015.
- DCS petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights in Oct. 2015; after an evidentiary hearing the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds were met, termination was in Child’s best interests, and adoption was a satisfactory plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | DCS: Father failed to remediate long‑standing substance and service noncompliance; risk of continued placement outside home | Father: Arrest/incarceration was the cause for removal and his completion of sentence remedied that condition; he is now willing to comply | Held: Court affirmed — evidence supported reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied due to persistent noncompliance and history of drug‑related conduct |
| Whether continuation of parent‑child relationship poses a threat | DCS: Continuation would impede permanency and stability for Child | Father: No current threat; now employed, living with parents, willing to engage in services | Held: Court did not need to reach this (one statutory ground proven), but record supports risk to permanency |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests | DCS: Child is thriving in pre‑adoptive placement, needs permanence; caseworkers and GAL recommend termination | Father: He is bonded, employed, living with family, and reunification remains possible | Held: Court affirmed — totality of evidence supports best‑interests finding (stability, progress in foster home, provider recommendations) |
| Whether DCS had a satisfactory plan for Child | DCS: Plan is adoption with the current pre‑adoptive foster family | Father: Plan too general; natural parent has stable housing and employment | Held: Court affirmed — adoption plan adequate for termination stage (detailed suitability for adoption is for adoption court) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (trial courts have wide deference in termination cases; past conduct may predict future fitness)
- K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step remediation analysis for conditions that led to removal)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are constitutional but may be terminated when parent cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility; affirm unless clearly erroneous)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (caseworker and GAL testimony plus unremedied conditions can establish best interests)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court must balance how long a child should wait for parental change against need for permanency)