In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.K. (a minor child), and E.K. (mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem.dec.)
79A05-1608-JT-1763
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- In early 2015 DCS removed one-year-old C.K. from Mother (E.K.) after reports she left children in a running car, used and sold heroin, tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamine, and was involved in domestic violence. Mother was adjudicated CHINS in April 2015.
- Court-ordered services included substance-abuse assessment/treatment, random drug screens, and a domestic-violence group; Mother repeatedly tested positive, missed screens, and minimized her substance use.
- Mother allowed the child’s father to return in violation of a no-contact situation; Father’s presence correlated with escalated drug use. Methamphetamine was found in Mother’s garage; Mother overdosed and repeatedly violated probation.
- DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights in February 2016; termination hearing occurred in April 2016. Caseworker and CASA testified the removal reasons (substance abuse and domestic violence) remained and termination served the child’s need for stability.
- The trial court found a reasonable probability the conditions would not be remedied, that termination was in C.K.’s best interests, and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Mother asserted she had housing, employment, supported/communicated with C.K., and could remedy conditions | DCS argued Mother’s ongoing substance abuse, failure to complete services, and return of the father showed conditions persisted and were unlikely to change | Court held evidence (positive tests, missed screens, failure to engage in services, domestic violence) supported finding conditions unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child’s well-being | Mother disputed threat, emphasizing parenting skills and contact with child | DCS relied on service-provider testimony that parental substance abuse and instability endangered the child | Court did not separately rely on this ground (disjunctive standard) but found threat supported by record |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Mother argued best interests favored reunification given her contacts and support | DCS argued child needed permanency and stability; providers testified termination served best interests | Court held termination was in C.K.’s best interests based on service-provider testimony and child’s need for stability |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion or made clearly erroneous findings | Mother claimed insufficient evidence and procedural error (continuance) | DCS maintained findings were supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and no continuance motion was filed | Court found no clear error, affirmed termination; denial-of-continuance argument fails because no motion was filed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard for appellate review of termination and DCS burden)
- In re Bester, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (purpose of termination is child protection when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (termination aims to protect child, not punish parent)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis for whether removal conditions will be remedied)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (factors showing habitual conduct and consideration of offered services)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (totality of evidence and subordinating parental interests to child’s)
- In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (termination proper where child’s development threatened)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (child’s need for permanency central to best-interests analysis)
- McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (service-provider testimony can support best-interests finding)
- Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (standard for reversing termination is clear error)