In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Chld Relationship of M.M. and N.H., Minor Children, A.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
79A02-1704-JT-749
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Mother (A.H.) and Father had two children, M.M. and N.H.; DCS filed CHINS petitions after domestic violence and parental neglect reports in December 2013.
- Children removed and placed in foster care in March 2015; they remained in foster care with prospective adoptive concurrent foster parents since August 2015.
- Over nearly three years of services, Mother struggled with housing instability, employment, untreated mental-health issues, inconsistent participation in services, substance-use concerns, and unsafe relationships (multiple boyfriends with histories of violence).
- Mother’s supervised and overnight visits improved at times but included safety-plan violations and instances where she allowed unsafe people/behavior around the children; visits were intermittently suspended.
- Trial court found no reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would be remedied, that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat, and that adoption by the concurrent foster parents was a satisfactory permanency plan; the court terminated parental rights.
- Mother appealed only the best-interests finding, arguing her bond with the children and efforts toward improvement made termination inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Mother: strong parent-child bond and ongoing efforts toward improvement mean termination is unnecessary | DCS: Mother’s long-term inability to provide stable, safe housing, inconsistent participation in services, safety violations during visits, and current unsafe relationships make termination necessary for children’s permanency | Court affirmed: totality of evidence supports that termination is in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App.) (parental right protected by Fourteenth Amendment but subordinate to child’s interests)
- Schultz v. Porter Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App.) (termination appropriate when child’s development is threatened)
- R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind.) (clear-and-convincing burden in termination cases)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind.) (two-tiered review when trial court issues findings)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind.) (findings clearly erroneous only when record contains no supporting facts)
- In re L.S. (Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children), 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App.) (deference to trial court on termination findings)
- Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
- A.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App.) (best-interests determination requires totality-of-evidence review)
- Castro v. State Off. of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App.) (parent’s historical inability to provide housing and supervision supports best-interests finding)