In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of P.Y. and J.Y. (Minor Children), and R.Y. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1609-JT-2033

Background

Children (born 2004 and 2005) were removed in Dec. 2012 after reports of inappropriate sexualized behavior and educational neglect; prior CHINS history existed (2007–2008).
DCS provided services (parenting assessment, home-based therapy, psychological evaluation, domestic violence program); Mother engaged intermittently but failed to complete recommended mental-health treatments and DBT.
Mother diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and borderline personality disorder; she resisted medication, missed appointments, and exhibited volatile/unpredictable behavior during visits.
Visits regressed from unsupervised back to supervised; one child stopped visits; children placed in a stable pre-adoptive foster home and remain in therapy.
Trial court found family case manager, GAL, and multiple therapists recommended termination as in the children’s best interests, and concluded (by clear and convincing evidence) that (1) conditions leading to removal will not be remedied, (2) termination is in the children’s best interests, and (3) DCS has an adoption plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied	Mother: she made progress in therapy and DCS did not prove future risk	DCS: Mother failed to complete recommended mental-health and parenting treatment, remains unstable and noncompliant	Court: Held for DCS — clear and convincing evidence supports no reasonable probability of remedy
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Mother: permanency alone insufficient; she contests that termination is required	DCS: Children need stability; permanency via adoption by foster family is in their best interests	Court: Held for DCS — evidence (case manager, GAL, therapists) supports best-interests finding
Whether DCS met statutory burden and standard of review	Mother: insufficient evidence overall to meet clear and convincing standard	DCS: presented clear and convincing evidence on statutory elements; trial court findings entitled to deference	Court: Held for DCS — applied deferential review, findings supported judgment

Key Cases Cited

In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (termination protects children when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (DCS must prove each statutory element by clear and convincing evidence)
K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step analysis to decide whether conditions leading to removal will be remedied)
In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2010) (framework for assessing remedy probability)
In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (consideration of patterns of conduct in remedy analysis)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (balance recent improvements against habitual patterns to predict future conduct)
Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unwillingness to address parenting problems supports termination)
McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (caseworker/GAL testimony about need for permanency supports best-interests finding)
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (totality of evidence and subordination of parental interest to child’s interest in best-interests inquiry)
In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (need for permanency alone insufficient where parent shows meaningful progress)
C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (deferential standard of appellate review in termination cases)
In re R.J., 829 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (judgment is clearly erroneous if findings do not support conclusions or conclusions do not support judgment)