In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.C.M., J.O.M., and J.M.J (Minor Children) and J.J. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
79A02-1701-JT-205
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Mother and Father are biological parents of three young children (born 2008, 2011, 2013); three older half‑siblings were also involved in CHINS proceedings but are not part of this appeal.
- In March 2014 DCS received multiple neglect/domestic‑violence/drug exposure reports; interviews disclosed physical abuse, instructions to children not to talk, and admissions of parental substance use.
- After positive drug screens for Mother and the three youngest children, DCS removed the children in April 2014; all six children were adjudicated CHINS and placed in foster or relative care (paternal grandparents for the three youngest).
- Mother initially participated in services and showed progress, but relapsed into marijuana use, had ongoing contact with Father (despite protective orders), experienced criminal convictions and loss of housing/transportation, and repeatedly failed to comply with case management and drug‑testing requirements.
- DCS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights in April 2016; after hearings, the trial court found (among other things) that the conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied, continued parent‑child relationship threatened the children, termination was in the children’s best interests, and an adoptive plan (paternal grandparents) existed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding DCS presented clear and convincing evidence to support termination based on Mother’s ongoing substance abuse, unsafe contact with Father, inconsistent service participation, and lack of stable housing/employment/transportation.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Mother argued she made substantial progress (completed treatment, recent sobriety, protective order, counseling) and that DCS failed to provide inpatient treatment for marijuana | DCS relied on Mother’s repeated relapses, continued contact with Father, inability to sustain services, lack of housing/employment/transportation, and lengthy history of instability | Court held DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability the conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Mother argued bond and parental relationship support preserving rights; permanency could be achieved by guardianship | DCS and CASA argued children needed permanency and stability with paternal grandparents; continued uncertainty and Mother’s unresolved issues threatened children’s welfare | Court held termination was in the children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review and parental‑rights liberty interest)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (remediation standard and weighing recent improvements against habitual conduct)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (termination as last resort; considerations for parental fitness)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (judge parent fitness at time of termination, consider changed conditions)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (habitual conduct factors include substance abuse, criminal history, housing/employment)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (DCS need only show reasonable probability of non‑remediation; recommendation by DCS/CASA supports best‑interests finding)
- In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (termination protects child’s welfare; need not wait for irreversible harm)