In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.J., J.J., (Children) and M.R. (Mother) M.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
25A03-1705-JT-993
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Mother (M.R.) is the parent of two children, B.J. and J.J.; children were removed multiple times (2011, 2014) for lack of supervision, unsafe/unsanitary housing, and caregiver drug use.
- CHINS adjudications occurred in 2011 and 2015; reunification attempts followed but instability persisted.
- In 2016 Mother faced criminal charges for sexual misconduct with a minor; she had transient housing (four residences in 2016) and only recently claimed stable housing and employment at the termination hearing.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights in August 2016; fact-finding hearing was February 2017 and the court terminated Mother’s rights in April 2017.
- Trial court found (1) a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and (2) termination was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed, also challenging admission of certain hearsay testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Mother has a history of unstable housing, failed to benefit from services, and faces criminal charges making future stability unlikely | Recent employment and housing show remedy of conditions; compliance with services argues against termination | Court held sufficient evidence of reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied; affirmed |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Children need stability, therapists and GAL recommend termination given Mother’s inconsistent history | Mother shares bond with children; children’s behavioral issues are not solely due to placement changes | Court held record supports that termination was in children’s best interests; affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting hearsay (former FCM notes via Holcomb) | Admission was permissible for case history and harmless because ample independent evidence supported termination | Admission was hearsay and prejudicial; trial court should have excluded it | Court concluded any error was harmless due to substantial independent evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.S., D.S., & B.G., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for reviewing termination decisions)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing burden for termination grounds)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when trial court issues findings and conclusions)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (parental compliance that fails to produce lasting change insufficient to avoid termination)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court may consider parent’s habitual patterns to predict future neglect)
- In re E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2004) (improperly admitted evidence is harmless if independent substantial evidence supports judgment)