In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.S., Co.M., Ca.M. (Minor Children), and A.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
82A01-1701-JT-57
Ind. Ct. App.Jul 19, 2017Background
- In April–May 2015 DCS removed three children from Mother (A.S.) after reports of Mother’s illegal drug use and neglect; the children were adjudicated CHINS. Father (J.M.) also received CHINS designation after leaving the children with an unapproved caregiver and becoming subject to arrest warrants.
- Both parents were ordered to complete substance-abuse evaluations, follow recommendations, submit to random drug screens, and participate in supervised visitation; both had significant noncompliance, relapses, and contempt findings.
- Father has an extensive criminal history (multiple felonies) and repeated drug-test failures; he disappeared early in the case, was arrested, served jail/time in treatment programs, and had intermittent improvements shortly before the termination hearing.
- Mother repeatedly failed to complete or maintain progress in substance-abuse treatment, had multiple contempt findings and relapses, unstable housing and employment, and was not able to provide for the children at the time of the termination hearing.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights in May 2016; factfinding hearings were held in Sept.–Oct. 2016 (Mother) and Sept.–Oct. 2016 (Father); trial court terminated both parents’ rights in December 2016.
- The foster parents were caring for all three children together and expressed willingness to adopt; DCS and CASA recommended termination and adoption to maintain sibling unity and provide permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Father’s continuance motion | Father: needed more time to show progress toward parental fitness | DCS/Court: no written motion/affidavit showing good cause; prior continuances granted; Father’s disappearance delayed proceedings | Denial not an abuse of discretion; Father failed to show good cause or prejudice |
| Whether there is a reasonable probability conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (Mother) | Mother: evidence insufficient to show conditions won’t be remedied | DCS/Court: history of relapse, failure to complete treatment, instability in housing/employment, contempt findings | Findings supported termination; reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether there is a reasonable probability conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (Father) | Father: initial removal was largely due to Mother; he has recently made improvements | DCS/Court: father abandoned children, long criminal history, repeated relapses, improvements were recent and possibly temporary | Findings supported termination; reasonable probability of unremedied conditions established |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Parents: termination not in best interests given recent improvements/bonding | DCS/Court: children thriving in preadoptive home; strong sibling bond; foster parents wish to adopt all three | Court properly concluded termination and adoption by foster parents are in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for continuance decisions and abuse of discretion)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (good-cause requirement for continuance and prejudice analysis)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing findings in termination-of-parental-rights cases)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental-rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence balancing parental liberty and child’s interests)
- In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard and harm to child’s development)
- McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (factors bearing on probability of remedial change: substance abuse, criminal history, housing, employment)
- D.B.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 20 N.E.3d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (court may weigh recent improvement against historical patterns when considering termination)