In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.W. (Minor Child) and L.D.W. (Father) L.D.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
26A01-1706-JT-1341
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Child born Feb 25, 2010; removed from parents' care Sept 26, 2014 after mother’s drug use and a prior DCS substantiation that Father had molested Child (later overturned).
- CHINS adjudication entered Oct 21, 2014 by parents’ stipulation; dispositional orders required Father to abstain from substances, submit to evaluation/treatment, random drug screens, and home-based counseling.
- Father repeatedly tested positive or missed drug screens, was held in contempt several times (Feb 2015, July 2015, Jan 2016), ordered to complete substance-abuse treatment, and provided many dilute urine specimens; he completed only 28 drug screens despite weekly testing orders.
- Molestation substantiation against Father was overturned in Aug 2015 and he was allowed supervised visitation, but he never progressed beyond supervised visits and sometimes visited after using illegal substances.
- DCS filed a petition to terminate parental rights July 19, 2016; after multiple hearings, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights May 17, 2017; Father appealed only the termination of his rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conditions that led to Child’s removal will not be remedied (Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)) | Father’s substance abuse, noncompliance with court-ordered services, missed/positive/tampered drug screens, and high relapse risk show a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied | Father contends the court’s findings do not support the conclusion that conditions are unlikely to be remedied; challenges sufficiency of some findings | Court affirmed: unchallenged findings (noncompliance, contempt, dilute samples, limited drug screens, no progression beyond supervised visitation) support conclusion that continuation/conditions pose a threat and will not be remedied; thus termination is supported |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests | Child needs permanency; DCS and CASA recommend adoption, sibling bond should be preserved; parents’ history of substance abuse and instability make reunification unsuitable | Father claims a strong parent–child bond and willingness to pursue reunification services | Court affirmed: considering the totality of evidence and Father’s failure to utilize services over two years, termination was in Child’s best interests to avoid indefinite limbo |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (standard of review when judgment contains specific findings and conclusions)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (State must prove termination elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.W., 779 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (subsection (B) written in the disjunctive; State need prove only one ground)
- T.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (unchallenged findings that support termination preclude reversal)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court defers to juvenile court; does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
- In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (court will not leave child in "permanency purgatory" waiting for parents to become capable)