In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.F., Minor Child, and J.F., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1707-JT-1633

Child J.F. born March 18, 2014; removed from mother's care Oct. 2015 and adjudicated CHINS Feb. 2016. Father was incarcerated for prior felonies and did not participate in CHINS services while imprisoned.
Father was convicted in 2016 for unlawful possession of a firearm and received a multi-year sentence with portions to be served in DOC and community corrections. He had brief work-release time in March 2017 but was returned to custody for violations.
DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on November 22, 2016. Father did not contact DCS within 72 hours of release as ordered and made only limited contacts with J.F. (three in-person contacts while on work release and brief phone calls).
J.F. has lived with maternal grandparents her entire life in a pre-adoptive placement, is bonded to them and a half-sibling, and requires regular medical care for sickle cell anemia. Mother consented to adoption.
At the June 21, 2017 termination hearing Father was absent. FCM and GAL recommended termination and adoption; the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Father’s parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditions leading to J.F.’s removal will not be remedied	DCS: Father’s incarceration, criminal history, lack of contact, and noncompliance show reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied	Father: Evidence insufficient to show conditions won’t be remedied or that he won’t reunify	Held: Trial court properly found reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied; findings supported termination
Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child’s well-being	DCS: Continuing relationship would delay permanency and impede adoption into stable, bonded home	Father: Insufficient proof of threat to child’s well-being	Held: Court found continuation would hinder permanency and pose barrier; termination supported
Whether termination is in child’s best interests	DCS: Permanency with pre-adoptive caregivers who meet medical needs is in J.F.’s best interest	Father: Termination not in best interest due to paternal rights and possible future change in circumstances	Held: Court concluded termination is in J.F.’s best interests based on totality of evidence
Whether satisfactory plan exists for future care	DCS: Adoption by maternal grandparents is a satisfactory plan	Father: Challenged adequacy of plan implicitly by opposing termination	Held: Court found adoption a satisfactory plan for care and treatment

In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review framework in termination proceedings)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis for remedy of conditions and deference to trial court’s assessment of changed conditions)
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (evaluate habitual patterns of conduct to predict future behavior)
Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (services not required where parent is incarcerated)
In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (court may consider continued placement reasons, criminal history, and failure to progress)
In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (recommendations of case manager and GAL plus proof conditions won’t be remedied can show best interests)
McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (child’s need for permanency is central to best-interests inquiry)
In re E.E., 736 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (provision of services is not an element of termination statute)
In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (noting services issue and termination statutory framework)
K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (no bright-line rule on release timing to preserve parental rights)