In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.S., Mother, J.D.W., Father, and J.W., Minor Child, T.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
48A02-1606-JT-1496
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Child (born 2004) was removed from Mother’s custody in January 2014 after Mother said she could not care for Child; DCS filed a CHINS petition and later changed permanency to adoption (July–August 2015).
- Mother failed to consistently participate in ordered services (counseling, substance evaluations, parenting) and had unstable housing; she missed or cancelled supervised visits, which were suspended in July 2015.
- Mother submitted to ~25 drug screens between Jan 2014–2016, with 19 positives for substances including methamphetamine, amphetamine, THC, and cocaine; a positive screen occurred April 8, 2016 (one month before hearing).
- Child suffered from PTSD and complex trauma from time with Mother, displayed aggressive behavior, and was moved through multiple foster placements and a treatment facility before stabilizing in a foster home where she thrived.
- Therapists, the DCS case managers, the CASA, and the current foster parents all recommended terminating Mother’s parental rights as in Child’s best interests; juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights in June 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | Mother contends she cooperated and had made progress; evidence of change precludes finding conditions won’t be remedied | DCS points to Mother’s long history of instability, repeated positive drug tests (including shortly before hearing), failure to complete services, and another CHINS involving her older child | Court held DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the removal conditions (drug use, unstable housing, inability to parent) were unlikely to be remedied; termination may be based on that factor alone |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(ii)) | Mother argued continuation should be allowed given any improvements and parent’s interest | DCS relied on therapists’ testimony that visits triggered Child’s trauma and behavioral deterioration | Court found it unnecessary to resolve this factor because the remedies-prong was satisfied, but evidence supported concern about harm from continued contact |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C)) | Mother argued permanency alone is insufficient to terminate rights and cited authority limiting reliance on stability alone | DCS emphasized totality of evidence: ongoing substance abuse, inconsistent services/visitation, harm to Child from visits, and Child’s positive adjustment in foster home with adoption plan | Court held termination was in Child’s best interests, relying on the unremedied conditions plus unanimous professional recommendations and Child’s successful, stable foster placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (parental-rights termination standard and need to subordinate parental interests to child’s welfare)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (DCS burden in termination cases is clear and convincing evidence)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review deferential to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step test for whether removal conditions will be remedied and balancing recent improvements against habitual conduct)
- In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (IC §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is disjunctive; proof of any one listed factor suffices)
- In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (where one B-factor is proven, others need not be shown)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality of evidence and professional recommendations can support best-interests finding)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (stability/permanency alone are insufficient to justify termination)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reiterating that permanency alone is insufficient; court must examine totality)
- In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (standard for reversing termination is clear error)