In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.L., (minor child) and S.L. (father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
64A04-1702-JT-360
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Child E.L. born Dec. 7, 2012; mother murdered Jan. 2015 in the family home; father (S.L.) became a person of interest and was incarcerated Feb. 12, 2015.
- DCS removed E.L. from father’s care and filed a CHINS petition; father admitted allegations and juvenile court adjudicated E.L. a CHINS in April 2015.
- E.L. was placed with maternal grandparents in Illinois; reunification initially remained the permanency plan but was later changed to adoption after father’s conviction.
- Father was convicted of the mother’s murder by jury in March 2016 and sentenced to 55 years in April 2016; juvenile court found reasonable reunification efforts not required.
- DCS filed to terminate father’s parental rights in June 2016; juvenile court granted termination in Jan. 2017, finding the removal conditions unlikely to be remedied and noting statutory authority addressing parental murder of the other parent.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DCS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Termination is premature because father still has appellate remedies pending | Father’s incarceration following a murder conviction makes remedy unlikely; father offered only hope of reversal | Court held evidence supports finding conditions unlikely to be remedied; termination affirmed |
| Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child | Argued court erred in finding ongoing relationship dangerous | DCS invoked statutory framework and conviction as indicia of threat; but alternative ground unnecessary once first ground proven | Court declined to address in detail because first statutory ground was satisfied |
| Whether due process / constitutional parental-rights protections bar termination now | Father emphasized constitutional interest and pending appeals | DCS argued parental rights subordinate to child’s welfare and termination aims to protect child | Court applied established balancing standard; parental rights may be terminated when parent cannot meet responsibilities and child’s welfare requires it |
| Whether juvenile court applied correct standard of review | Father argued findings unsupported by record | DCS maintained record and inferences support findings; juvenile court properly considered past conduct and likelihood of future remedy | Court applied two-tier review and found findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are constitutional but may be terminated to protect child's welfare)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (trial court may weigh past behavior more heavily than recent improvements when predicting future parenting)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (two-step analysis for determining if removal conditions will be remedied)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (framework for assessing reasonable probability of future neglect or deprivation)
- In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (incarceration and lack of evidence of plans for housing/employment support termination)
- In re Invol. Term. of Parental Rights of S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate review will not reweigh evidence or credibility in termination appeals)
- Castro v. Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (absence of services may be attributable to incarceration and does not preclude termination)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination purpose is to protect child, not punish parent)