In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of : D.S. and A.A., Minor Children and D.M., Mother and E.A., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 45A03-1611-JT-2502

Two children (D.S., b. 2011; A.A., b. 2013) were removed from parents’ care in November 2013 after reports of poor hygiene, spoiled milk, sores and missing hair, and unstable caregiving arrangements.
DCS filed CHINS petitions and provided reunification services (parenting classes, therapy, home-based services, supervised visitation) over ~3 years; a permanency plan later shifted to termination with adoption.
Foster mother (Kimp) cared for the children for nearly three years; both children have special/developmental needs and made substantial progress in her care; Kimp planned to pursue adoption if TPR granted.
Mother has a history of housing instability, psychiatric hospitalizations, inconsistent visitation and incomplete domestic-violence treatment; psychological testing showed borderline intellectual functioning and other deficits.
Father had inconsistent housing and employment, missed many visits, had limited awareness of A.A.’s special needs, and did not complete parenting objectives; both parents admitted CHINS material allegations.
Trial court found clear and convincing evidence that (1) conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied and/or continuation of the relationship threatened children’s well-being, (2) termination was in children’s best interests, and (3) adoption by foster parent was a satisfactory plan; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for TPR under I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (remedy threat)	DCS: Parents’ prolonged instability, noncompliance, and the children’s special needs make remedy unlikely	Parents: They made improvements (housing since May 2016, jobs, schooling); Father complied with plan and would have housing; Mother can make time for care	Affirmed: Clear and convincing evidence supports finding conditions will not be remedied or continuation threatens children’s well-being
Best interests of the children	DCS: Permanency and stability with bonded, capable foster parent serve children’s best interests	Parents: Children should be returned; parents are working toward stability	Affirmed: Totality of evidence (progress in foster home, parental patterns) shows termination is in children’s best interests
Sufficiency of plan for children post-TPR	DCS: Adoption by foster parent is a satisfactory plan	Parents: (implicit) adoption not necessary if parents reunified	Affirmed: Adoption by foster parent is a satisfactory, permissible plan
Standard of review / credibility	DCS: Trial court’s findings entitled to deference; clear-and-convincing standard met	Parents: Trial court erred in weighing evidence and predicting future capacity	Affirmed: Appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings and upholds judgment under clear-and-convincing standard

In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing burden in TPR cases)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (reviewer must defer to trial court’s credibility assessments and weigh recent improvements against historic patterns)
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard for appellate review of trial court findings)
In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (court may consider ongoing bases for removal and parental response to services)
In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (unchallenged trial-court findings stand as proven)
McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (child’s need for permanency is a central best-interests consideration)
In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (case manager and guardian recommendations may support best-interests finding)
In re B.M., 913 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (adoption is a satisfactory plan under TPR statute)
In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (plan for care need only provide general direction post-TPR)
A.J. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 881 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (adoption plan upheld where evidence supported permanency)