In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.C. (Minor Child) and T.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
02A05-1703-JT-471
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Mother (T.M.) originally lost custody of Child (born 2005) in Nov. 2014 after DCS removed Child due to Mother's mental-health and substance-abuse problems and Child's school absences; Child was adjudicated CHINS in Feb. 2015.
- The dispositional plan required Mother to complete assessments, treatment, random drug screens, parenting classes, and maintain visitation; Mother initially complied but stopped services and visitations by mid‑2015.
- In Aug. 2015 a drug screen was positive for cocaine; Mother later told DCS she would stop testing and services and at times said she did not seek reunification.
- Stepfather briefly had custody and sought adoption, but providers removed Child from his home in mid‑2016 due to concerns about his ability to meet Child’s needs; Child was placed with pre‑adoptive foster parents and improved.
- DCS filed to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights in June 2016; after hearings the trial court terminated Mother’s rights in Feb. 2017, concluding Mother hadn’t remedied the reasons for removal, termination was in Child’s best interests, and adoption was a satisfactory plan.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions that led to removal will not be remedied | Mother emphasized early compliance, completion of substance‑abuse and parenting programs, negative screens before relapse, and recent attempts to reengage after incarceration | Mother relapsed, largely disengaged from services and visitation for long periods, failed to benefit from therapy, had unstable housing and criminal convictions; historical pattern outweighed late efforts | Affirmed — court found clear‑and‑convincing evidence that conditions (mental‑health/substance abuse, instability) were unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests | Mother argued she previously provided for Child, posed no safety risk, and had resumed services and housing after release | DCS and advocates pointed to Child’s improved stability in pre‑adoptive home, Mother’s abandonment, lack of insight into Child’s trauma, and ongoing inability to provide consistent care | Affirmed — court concluded totality of evidence and recommendations from CASA/GAL favored termination |
| Whether adoption is a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment | Mother contended Child’s age (11) and behavioral issues made adoption by non‑stepfather parties problematic | DCS’s plan sought adoption and placement with pre‑adoptive family who was meeting Child’s needs; termination court need not identify a specific adoptive family | Affirmed — adoption was a satisfactory, legally sufficient plan |
Key Cases Cited
- C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appelate standard and deference in termination appeals)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and two‑tier review for termination findings and conclusions)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (showing threat to child’s emotional/physical development suffices)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two‑step analysis for whether removal conditions will be remedied; weigh current fitness against habitual conduct)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (consideration of changed conditions vs. historical patterns)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (caseworker/advocate recommendations plus unremedied conditions can establish best interests)
- In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (adoption is a satisfactory plan without naming a specific adoptive family)