In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.N.S., G.L.S., and N.M.M. (minor children) O.S. (mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
28A05-1611-JT-2682
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- Mother (O.S.) had three daughters removed in Feb 2015 after DCS found unsafe, cluttered motel conditions and domestic violence; children were adjudicated CHINS and placed together in foster care.
- Court ordered Mother to complete home-based services, therapy, supervised visitation, and obtain stable income and housing; she failed to complete services and did not secure stable housing or income.
- Service providers and therapist testified Mother was often asleep/missed appointments, continued self-harm (cutting), and could not properly supervise visits; supervised visitation was suspended prior to the termination hearing.
- Case manager and CASA reported the children were thriving in foster care, recommended termination to provide permanency, and the plan was adoption by foster parents.
- DCS filed termination petitions in April 2016; the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights in October 2016. Father voluntarily relinquished his rights and is not part of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interests | DCS: children need permanency; Mother failed to remedy conditions or complete services; service providers recommend termination | Mother: termination not in children’s best interests; DCS failed to prove best-interest element by clear and convincing evidence | Court affirmed termination — evidence supports best-interest finding and need for permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (parental rights protected by Due Process but subordinated to child’s interests when development is threatened)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (DCS must prove termination elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate standard of review for termination; do not reweigh evidence)
- In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (findings clearly erroneous standard explained)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (court must consider totality of evidence and subordinate parental interests)
- In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (termination appropriate when child’s development is threatened)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (child’s need for permanency is central to best-interest analysis)
- McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (testimony of service providers can support best-interest finding)
- Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (reversal of termination requires clear error leaving definite and firm conviction of mistake)