In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.H. (Minor Child), and S.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
71A05-1702-JT-370
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Mother (S.H.) had Child removed after mental-health crises: hospitalization in July 2014 for suicidal and homicidal threats while living in a homeless shelter; CHINS adjudication in Aug. 2014 and dispositional services ordered.
- Child was placed in foster care after further incidents (March 2015) including threats toward the Child made in Child’s presence; DCS later approved adoption as concurrent permanency plan.
- Termination petition filed March 2016; evidentiary hearing in Nov. 2016; trial court issued an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on Jan. 2, 2017, crediting a psychologist’s diagnosis of delusional disorder and a history of improvement followed by relapse.
- Mother’s appellate counsel was appointed Jan. 12, 2017; notice of appeal to Court of Appeals was due Feb. 1, 2017, but was not timely filed; counsel filed a motion in the trial court to file a belated notice of appeal, which the trial court denied as beyond its authority.
- Mother moved to correct error as to that denial; trial court denied the motion; Mother timely appealed that denial and later sought to have her forfeited appeal of the Termination Order heard on the merits under the “extraordinarily compelling reasons” doctrine.
- Court of Appeals (Crone, J.) (1) affirmed the denial of the motion to correct error (holding Postconviction Rule 2 does not apply to termination cases and the trial court lacked authority to grant belated appeals), but (2) exercised appellate-rule discretion to consider the merits of the forfeited termination appeal as an extraordinarily compelling case and affirmed termination for clear-and-convincing evidence that conditions would not likely be remedied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Postconviction Rule 2 authorized the trial court to grant a belated appeal/motion to correct error | Mother: Postconviction Rule 2 governs belated appeals and permits trial-court relief; trial court erred in denying motion to correct error | DCS/Trial Court: Rule 2 applies only to eligible criminal defendants, not to termination proceedings; trial court lacked authority | Held: Rule 2 does not apply; issue waived for poor briefing but decided de novo for law — trial court did not err |
| Whether court should restore Mother’s forfeited notice of appeal under “extraordinarily compelling reasons” | Mother: Though notice was untimely (counsel’s mistake), the parental-rights interest and contemporaneous effort to perfect appeal justify restoration under Appellate Rule 1/O.R. | DCS: Forfeiture under Appellate Rule 9 bars appeal absent compelling reasons; Mother’s counsel’s error insufficient | Held: Court finds extraordinary reasons (termination’s gravity + technically deficient but contemporaneous attempt to appeal) and hears the termination appeal on the merits |
| Whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence there is a reasonable probability the conditions causing removal will not be remedied (IC 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | Mother: She has stabilized housing, engaged in counseling, and improved; court overstated Dr. Wax’s testimony and undervalued counselor’s view | DCS: Mother has long history of mental illness (delusional disorder), pattern of relapse, prior threats to Child and others, and sporadic engagement with treatment | Held: Affirmed — trial court’s findings (credited expert, pattern of relapse, ongoing symptoms) supported conclusion that conditions likely will not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child’s well-being | Mother: (argued implicitly) improvements undermine threat argument | DCS: Ongoing mental-health instability and history of threats endangers Child | Held: Claim waived by lack of cogent argument; court primarily affirms under remedy prong but notes parental-rights interest justifies careful review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (permits appellate-rule deviation to restore forfeited appeals for “extraordinarily compelling reasons,” particularly in parental-rights context)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing termination orders; two-tiered review and clear-and-convincing evidence requirement)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step inquiry: identify conditions leading to placement and assess probability they will not be remedied)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (recognizing parental relationship as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear-and-convincing standard does not require proof that continued custody is wholly inadequate; sufficient if child’s development is threatened)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)