In the Matter of the Guardianship of I.R., M.P. and D.P. v. M.M.J.S, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 222

Background

Child born March 7, 2012; Mother arrested for neglect in Dec. 2014 and with her consent Child was placed with his aunt and uncle (Guardians).
Guardians obtained temporary guardianship Jan. 27, 2015; permanent guardianship granted May 12, 2015 with conditions for any future modification/termination that Mother expressly consented to.
Conditions required Mother to show safe/stable housing, stable income, substance-abuse and mental-health evaluation and ongoing treatment, sobriety/mental stability, and commitment to a stable environment.
Mother filed a verified petition to terminate/modify the guardianship on Nov. 25, 2015; a final hearing occurred Sept. 9, 2016.
At the hearing Mother testified she had stable housing (two-bedroom apartment), steady employment (McDonald’s manager), passed probation drug screens, participated in substance-abuse counseling and mental-health treatment, and maintained consistent visitation with Child.
Child had behavioral/psychological diagnoses (PTSD, ADD, disruptive attachment); the trial court ordered a gradual transition back to Mother after finding Mother satisfied the guardianship conditions and Guardians failed to rebut the parental presumption.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Guardians)	Held
Whether trial court erred in terminating guardianship	Mother argued she met the court-ordered conditions and thus was entitled to termination of the guardianship	Guardians argued Mother did not sufficiently prove she met the conditions and that Child’s best interests favored remaining with them due to bonding and special needs	Trial court did not err: Mother met conditions; Guardians failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that remaining with Guardians was substantially better for Child
Whether Child’s behavioral/mental-health needs preclude return to Mother	Mother argued she participated in Child’s therapy when allowed and could follow treatment and transition plans	Guardians argued Mother was not prepared to address Child’s special needs and immediate removal would be traumatic	Court found evidence supported a gradual transition and that special needs did not preclude Mother’s right to parent; Guardians didn’t prove harm from transition
Whether passage of time/length of placement weighed against termination	Mother filed petition within ~1 year of placement and 6 months after permanent guardianship; she emphasized ongoing visitation and efforts	Guardians emphasized near-half of Child’s life spent with them and that time strengthened bond and stability	Court found timing was not so long or prejudicial given Mother’s timely petition and consistent visitation; trial court considered time and found insufficient evidence to overcome parental presumption
Standard/burden of proof on modification	Mother contended minimal burden to show compliance with conditions, invoking parental presumption	Guardians argued burden should favor third-party custodians because Child was placed with them	Court applied established law: parent bears a minimal burden to show justification; once met, third party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that child’s best interests are substantially and significantly served by remaining with them; Guardians failed to meet that burden

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship of M.N.S., 23 N.E.3d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and burden allocation in guardianship modification)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (preference for deference to trial judges in family law and parental presumption)
In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. 2002) (parental presumption and clear-and-convincing burden on third parties)
Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002) (deference and latitude to trial courts in custody matters)
In re Guardianship of J.K., 862 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review limits: no reweighing evidence or reassessing credibility)