In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.M., (Minor Child) and B.G. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
26A04-1702-JT-426
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- J.M. was born December 11, 2014; newborn and mother tested positive for THC and the child was removed and placed in foster care.
- Father (B.G.) was incarcerated at the time of J.M.’s birth; serving sentences related to methamphetamine offenses with an earliest stated release date of June 2021.
- Juvenile court adjudicated J.M. a CHINS; dispositional order required Father to complete substance-abuse and parenting services and to attend visits, but Father remained incarcerated and had not completed in‑prison substance treatment by the termination hearing.
- DCS filed a petition to terminate parental rights; Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights and Father’s rights were the subject of the TPR proceeding.
- Evidence at the termination hearing: Father’s long history of methamphetamine addiction and repeated drug‑related convictions, limited success addressing addiction pre‑incarceration, months of sobriety in custody but no completed treatment, and J.M.’s strong bond with long‑term foster parents who seek adoption.
- Juvenile court found DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the removal conditions were unlikely to be remedied, (2) continuation of the parent‑child relationship posed a threat, (3) termination was in J.M.’s best interests, and (4) adoption was a satisfactory plan; appellate court affirmed as to remedy finding and affirmed judgment overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Father’s long history of methamphetamine use, repeated criminality, lack of completed in‑custody treatment, and lengthy incarceration make remediation unlikely | Father contended record does not show the removal reasons won’t be remedied; his recent sobriety and participation in some programs indicate potential for change | Court held evidence supported finding that conditions were unlikely to be remedied; trial court permissibly weighed long‑term history over recent in‑custody conduct |
| Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship poses a threat to the child’s well‑being | Continuation would threaten permanence and stability given Father’s incarceration, substance history, and residential instability | Father argued insufficient evidence to show continuation posed a threat | Court did not need to resolve this separately after affirming remedy finding (statutory alternatives), but trial court’s threat finding was supported by record |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | DCS: termination promotes permanency and adoption with bonded foster parents | Father: (implicitly) argues insufficient grounds for termination and that family placements should be pursued | Court concluded termination was in J.M.’s best interests given need for permanency and foster placement stability |
| Whether DCS met its statutory burden by clear and convincing evidence | DCS: presented evidence on statutory elements (removal duration, remedy, best interests, plan) | Father: challenged sufficiency of evidence on remedy and threat elements | Court held DCS met clear and convincing burden and affirmed termination judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights protected but may be terminated to protect child; courts balance recent improvements against habitual conduct)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (incarceration alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (trial court may weigh long‑term parental history against recent changes when assessing likelihood of remediation)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (two‑step analysis: identify removal conditions then assess probability they will not be remedied)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (purpose of termination is to protect child’s welfare and need not wait until irreversible harm)