In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.S. Jr. and J.S. (Minor Children) and D.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 71A03-1704-JT-823

Children D.S. Jr. (b. 2007) and J.S. (b. 2009) were removed in May 2015 after DCS found unsanitary hotel conditions, parental drug use in the children’s presence, untreated medical issues, and domestic violence in the children’s presence.
CHINS adjudication followed; dispositional order required parents to complete mental‑health, substance‑abuse, parenting, and home‑based services and submit to supervised visitation and drug screens.
Mother displayed longstanding mental‑health disorders and ongoing cocaine use, refused drug screens, failed to complete a psychiatric evaluation, and behaved aggressively during supervised visits (including calling providers the “devil”).
Father had unstable engagement with services and visitation, arrived intoxicated once, missed or cancelled many visits, made threatening/inappropriate remarks to the children, minimized Mother’s problems, and scored low on a parenting evaluation.
Therapists, the guardian ad litem, and the DCS case manager recommended cessation of Father’s visitation and supported termination; trial court found continuation of the parent‑child relationship posed a threat and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Trial court terminated both parents’ rights; parents appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the two‑tiered highly deferential standard and accepting unchallenged findings as true.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well‑being under I.C. §31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)	DCS: Parents’ conduct, untreated substance abuse and mental illness, poor parenting, and children’s adverse reactions create a reasonable probability of threat	Mother/Father: improved housing, some service participation, and (Father) employment show threat removed	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports (B)(ii) that continuation poses a threat
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests under I.C. §31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(C)	DCS: Totality of evidence (service noncompliance, children’s improved well‑being in foster care, professional recommendations) favors termination	Father: Relies on precedent where a cooperating father and lack of adoptive placement counseled against termination	Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence (including professionals’ recommendations and children’s needs) shows termination is in best interests

C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for termination appeals)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (two‑tiered review and clear‑and‑convincing standard explained)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clarifies harm standard for termination: emotional/physical development threatened)
In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (termination appropriate when parents unwilling/unable to meet responsibilities)
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (best‑interests analysis includes totality of evidence and professional recommendations)
In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (children should not suffer emotional injury to preserve parental rights)
In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (distinguishable precedent where father complied with services and termination was not in the child’s best interests)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parents’ failure to use recommended services supports finding termination is in child’s best interests)