In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.P., Mother, S.R., Father, and B.R., Minor Child, T.P. and S.R. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
82A01-1606-JT-1275
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Child born June 10, 2014; both parents have significant intellectual disabilities and mental-health/impulse-control disorders. Child was removed from parents two days after birth based on hospital concerns.
- Child placed briefly with maternal grandparents, then removed when DCS learned grandfather was a convicted child molester and grandparents had prior DCS history; child remained in foster care thereafter and was thriving with prospective adoptive foster parents.
- Parents received reunification services (supervised visitation, therapy, parent aides, parenting classes); supervised visits showed parents often inattentive, unable to retain safety instructions, and exhibiting impulsive/angry behavior.
- Psychological testing showed very low IQs (Mother ~53–63; Father ~59) and need for extensive supportive supervision to parent safely.
- DCS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in January 2016; juvenile court terminated rights on May 31, 2016 (finding conditions would not be remedied, continuation posed risk, termination in child’s best interests, and adoption plan satisfactory).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | DCS: parents' intellectual limits, mental-health/impulse issues, chaotic home (grandfather sex offender, prior DCS history), inability to supervise child, and failure to improve show low probability of remediation | Parents: they attended services, visited consistently, intended to move out, and other adults could supervise; improvements and willingness to comply show remediation possible | Court held DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that conditions will not be remedied (trial court findings supported by record) |
| Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(ii)) | DCS: parents' inattention, inability to anticipate hazards, and need for 24/7 supervision create risk | Parents: contest threat argument generally; emphasize bond and desire to parent | Court did not need to decide this element once remediation was established; record supports concern about threat if considered |
| Whether termination is in the child's best interests (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C)) | DCS: child is bonded to foster family, thriving, CASA and case manager recommended termination and adoption | Parents: claim loss of bond will harm child long-term (generalized harms) | Court held termination was in child's best interests given unremedied conditions, recommendations from CASA and case manager, and child’s stability in foster home |
| Whether ADA accommodations should have been considered for Mother | Mother: trial court should have provided ADA accommodations for intellectual disability; lack of accommodation undermines proceedings | DCS: issue was not raised at trial; procedural default | Court found issue waived because Mother did not raise ADA claim in juvenile court and therefore cannot assert it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (parental rights subordinated to child’s welfare; termination appropriate when parent unwilling or unable to meet responsibilities)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard and review deference to trial court; statutory requirements for termination)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. 2016) (appellate review standards for termination cases; two-tiered review when findings made)
- In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (disjunctive alternative elements under IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B))
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis for remedial-probability inquiry: identify conditions and assess probability of remedy)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality of evidence and weight of caseworker/CASA recommendations when evaluating best interests)
- In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (standard for reversing termination; clear error review)
- McMaster v. McMaster, 681 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (unchallenged trial-court findings accepted as true)