In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.E. (Minor Child) and D.L. (Father) and D.R.E. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
37A04-1707-JT-1592
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 5, 2017Background
- Child D.E. born April 6, 2016; both mother (D.R.E.) and infant tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Father D.L. had prior methamphetamine-manufacturing criminal history.
- DCS placed Child in foster care April 2016 and adjudicated Child CHINS; court ordered parents to complete substance-abuse treatment, drug screens, parenting services, and stable housing among other requirements.
- Parents repeatedly failed to comply: mother missed/failed multiple drug tests, left and relapsed from treatment, was intermittently ‘on the run’ and incarcerated; father missed hearings, delayed establishing paternity, had positive drug tests, intermittent incarceration, and limited engagement with services.
- Permanency plan changed from reunification to adoption in January 2017; DCS filed to terminate parental rights January 10, 2017.
- At the May 2017 termination hearing, DCS caseworker and CASA recommended termination; trial court found clear and convincing evidence that conditions causing removal were unlikely to be remedied and termination was in Child’s best interests. Parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court clearly erred in concluding conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Parents argued their later participation in treatment showed progress and that the court should not terminate based on past conduct | DCS argued parents’ long-term pattern of substance abuse, noncompliance, criminal activity, and failure to submit to ordered drug screens showed low probability of remedy | Court: Affirmed — evidence supports finding a reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of parent–child relationship poses a threat to Child’s wellbeing | Parents contended improvements made weight against finding ongoing threat | DCS emphasized Child’s need for a stable, drug-free permanent home and parents’ instability | Court did not need to reach both prongs; on best-interest and remedy analysis, termination appropriate |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests | Mother argued evidence of some treatment participation undermines best-interest finding | DCS relied on testimony that Child bonded with foster parents and needs permanency; parents’ instability supports termination | Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence shows termination is in Child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 1996) (parental rights protected by Due Process but subordinate to child’s interests)
- Schultz v. Porter Cty. Office of Family & Children (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parental rights may be terminated when parent unwilling or unable to meet responsibilities)
- R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (termination burden is clear and convincing evidence)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when trial court issues special findings)
- E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re E.M.), 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis: identify removal conditions; assess reasonable probability of remedy)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parent may claim insufficient time to demonstrate fitness)
- Peterson v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility)
- Moore v. Jasper Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (habitual patterns of conduct relevant to predict future neglect)
- A.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (totality of evidence and child’s need for permanency inform best-interest analysis)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (historical inability to provide stability supports best-interest finding)
- L.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re A.D.S.), 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (evidence that reasons for removal will not be remedied plus expert testimony can prove best interests)