In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.W., J.W., D.B., Minor Children and Their Father, J.J., J.J v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1705-JT-1046
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Father (J.J.) had two children (born 2006, 2007). In March 2014 DCS filed CHINS petitions after Mother was incarcerated and Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Father waived factfinding; children were adjudicated CHINS.
- DCS assessed Father’s home and did not recommend placement due to Father’s admitted drug use and his girlfriend’s admitted drug use. Father requested placement with his mother (Paternal Grandmother).
- Paternal Grandmother was considered but her CPS and criminal history prevented placement; DCS sought waivers twice and was denied. Children were placed in foster care; one child (Ja.W.) required separate therapeutic placement for severe behavioral issues.
- Father had limited/episodic participation in court-ordered services (Father Engagement Program, substance-abuse and domestic-violence assessments), multiple arrests and convictions (including marijuana possession and a domestic-battery-related conviction), refused or failed to complete many services, and last visited the children over a year before the termination hearing.
- DCS changed permanency plan to adoption in January 2016 and filed to terminate Father’s parental rights the same month. After evidentiary hearings, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights in April 2017. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS violated Father’s due process/right to kinship placement by not placing children with Paternal Grandmother under I.C. § 31-34-4-2 | DCS should have placed children with Paternal Grandmother or obtained court placement; failure to do so violated Father’s due process and was fundamental error | The kinship statute governs CHINS placements and was considered; DCS examined Paternal Grandmother but her CPS/criminal history and denied waiver requests made placement improper; Father waived the issue by not raising it below | Court: Issue waived and merits fail — DCS considered grandmother, waivers were denied, no due process violation; no fundamental error |
| Sufficiency of evidence that conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | Father argued he had some compliance and that conditions could be remedied | DCS pointed to Father’s ongoing substance use, criminal convictions, anger/domestic violence, minimal participation in services, failure to provide verification of compliance, and long-term noncontact with children | Court: Evidence (including Father’s pattern of noncompliance, criminal history, drug use, and lack of participation) supports a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to children’s wellbeing (I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(ii)) | Father contested implication that continuation posed threat; emphasized alternatives (relatives, guardianship) | DCS cited Father’s anger, threats to children, prior battery conviction, minimization of child’s needs, and inability to address child’s severe behavioral/medical (medication) needs | Court: Evidence supports threat to children’s wellbeing; court found (ii) satisfied as well as (i) |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests and whether adoption (separate placements) is a satisfactory plan | Father argued best interests favored kinship placement, guardianship, or keeping siblings together; adoption that separates siblings is not in their best interests | DCS, service providers, CASA, and pre-adoptive parents supported termination and adoption; children expressed desire to remain in current placements; placement with grandmother was unsuitable | Court: Considering totality of evidence, permanency needs, children’s wishes, service provider and CASA recommendations, and the children’s special needs, termination and adoption by foster/pre-adoptive parents is in their best interests and constitutes a satisfactory plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Hite v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 845 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (CHINS proceedings are distinct from termination proceedings)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory prerequisites relevant to termination must be met)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (standard of review when trial court makes findings in termination cases)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (parents’ pattern of conduct and failure to remedy supports termination)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (case manager and advocate recommendations, plus unremedied conditions, support finding termination is in child’s best interests)
- Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (courts need not delay permanency while a parent fails to correct harmful conditions)