In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.J. R., Mother, J.F., Father and M.R., Minor Child, B.J.R. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A04-1701-JT-104
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- Child (born 2004) was removed from Mother after reports in Dec. 2014 of Mother’s heavy heroin use, selling pills, and giving Child cigarettes; DCS filed a CHINS petition and obtained wardship.
- Mother was arrested Jan. 28, 2015 for dealing in a narcotic and related charges, pled guilty, and has been incarcerated since; earliest certain release determined at hearing was June 2021.
- While incarcerated Mother completed some jail programs and had limited visits; she did not complete community substance-abuse services before arrest.
- Child has significant mental-health and behavioral needs, has been in residential treatment and therapeutic foster care, and made progress in the six months before the TPR hearing.
- DCS filed a petition to terminate parental rights in June 2016; the TPR fact-finding hearing occurred Nov. 18, 2016; juvenile court denied Mother’s last-minute continuance request and terminated parental rights on Dec. 9, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying Mother’s motion for a continuance of the TPR hearing was an abuse of discretion | Continuance needed to allow more time to identify family placement options that could obviate need for termination | DCS argued permanency need did not require knowing exact placement; delay was unreasonable given two years out-of-home and prior opportunities | Court: No abuse — judge reviewed CHINS file, found ample time to locate relatives, and Mother not prejudiced by denial |
| Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (reasonable probability) | Mother testified she engaged in programs in jail and expected earlier release, arguing she had remedied addiction | DCS emphasized long history of substance abuse, relapse, criminal conduct (dealing while CHINS pending), and lengthy incarceration preventing reunification soon | Court: Sufficient evidence by clear and convincing standard that conditions are unlikely to be remedied (Mother’s habitual conduct and expected incarceration) |
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interests | Mother argued permanency should await potential family guardianship and that adoption may be difficult; permanency alone insufficient | DCS and CASA argued Child needs stability and services; Child is adoptable and has progressed with out-of-home placement; Mother’s incarceration delays permanency | Court: Termination was in Child’s best interests given Child’s needs and need for permanency |
| Whether adoption is a satisfactory plan for Child | Mother said adoption was premature while relatives still being evaluated and argued DCS hadn’t proven conditions wouldn’t be remedied | DCS said adoption is a satisfactory, commonly accepted permanency plan and continued to search for adoptive placement | Court: Adoption is a satisfactory plan; DCS’s general plan sufficed despite no identified adoptive family yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009) (continuance—good cause standard)
- In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for continuance denials)
- K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard for proving conditions will not be remedied in TPR cases)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. 2016) (appellate review—defer to trial court credibility findings)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency is central in best-interests analysis)