In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.W.K. (Minor Child) and A.P.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
71A05-1703-JT-709
Ind. Ct. App.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Child born Aug. 2006; DCS removed Child from Father’s care Dec. 5, 2012 after reports of squalid home conditions, animal feces, ringworm, lack of medical care, and verbal abuse.
- Father initially admitted to a CHINS petition, complied with some services, and Child was returned to Father in July 2013 but Father later withdrew Child from school, moved without notifying DCS, and refused entry to DCS into his home.
- Child exhibited severe behavioral problems (threats, violence) and was placed in therapeutic/acute care in April 2014; Child has remained out of parents’ homes continuously since April 2014.
- Father became increasingly noncompliant with court-ordered services, refused recommended medication, experienced homelessness and declining mental health, and visits with Father correlated with negative changes in Child’s behavior; visits were suspended June 2016.
- DCS filed for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights (June 2015); trial court found Child had been removed for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and continuation of the relationship threatened Child’s wellbeing, termination was in Child’s best interests, and adoption by current foster parents was an appropriate plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests | DCS: Father’s prolonged noncompliance, deterioration of mental health, correlation between visits and Child’s worsening behavior, and stability in foster home make termination best for Child | Father: He maintained a home with utilities, a bedroom, food, clothing and good hygiene; DCS failed to prove conditions causing removal won’t be remedied and termination is unnecessary | Court affirmed: Trial court’s findings support that termination is in Child’s best interests; conclusion not clearly erroneous |
| Whether statutory grounds under I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) were proven | DCS: Child removed 15 of last 22 months; reasonable probability continuation poses threat and conditions won’t be remedied | Father: Argued DCS did not prove conditions leading to removal won’t be remedied | Court: Father waived challenge to the “threat” prong; based on threat prong and removal period, statutory elements met |
| Whether trial court erred by relying on Father’s mental illness | Father: Mental illness alone is insufficient to terminate rights | DCS: Father’s mental health, combined with noncompliance and negative impact on Child, supports termination | Court: Mental illness was not sole ground; court relied on totality of evidence, so no error |
| Whether reversal required because of trial attendance/medical excuse | Father: Could not remain at trial due to abscessed tooth | DCS: Father left voluntarily; no documentation provided | Court: Father voluntarily left and offered no evidence; findings unaffected and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (termination protects children and is a last resort)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (DCS must prove each element by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re D.W., 969 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (clear and convincing standard—threat to child’s emotional and physical development suffices)
- C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate deference in termination cases)
- In re D.P., 27 N.E.3d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (highly deferential standard of review for termination judgments)
- In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (best-interests inquiry requires totality of evidence and subordinating parental interests)
- In re R.J., 829 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for setting aside termination judgment)