In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.L., Mother, and Al.L., Ar.L., and K.M.L., Minor Children, A.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A04-1705-JT-1126
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Mother (A.L.) and Father had three children removed in June 2015 after DCS received reports of parental methamphetamine and other drug use, positive drug screens, and unsafe conditions (syringe found; friend overdose in presence of children).
- DCS adjudicated the children CHINS (August 2015) and ordered Mother to complete substance-abuse treatment, parenting assessments, home-based services, and submit to random drug screens; Mother repeatedly failed to comply and had multiple positive screens.
- Mother had intermittent contact with DCS, inconsistent supervised visitation, unstable housing, and multiple arrests/incarcerations for drug-related offenses during the case; she was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing and had participated in jail-based treatment for about seven months while confined.
- DCS moved to terminate parental rights in June 2016; the children had lived with relatives and then with foster parents who sought to adopt; CASA and the DCS case manager recommended termination as in the children’s best interests.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there was a reasonable probability the conditions causing removal would not be remedied, (2) termination was in the children’s best interests, and (3) there was a satisfactory plan; Mother appealed claiming the court erred.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court clearly erred in finding a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied | Mother: incarceration-based sobriety and recent jail treatment show likely imminent remediation once released; termination was premature | DCS: Mother failed to engage in offered community services, had a history of relapse, unstable housing and repeated incarcerations; short-term jail sobriety is not predictive of sustained recovery in an unstructured environment | Court affirmed: evidence supported conclusion that conditions were unlikely to be remedied given Mother’s pattern of noncompliance and criminal history |
| Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being | Mother: argued improvement in jail suggested no present threat | DCS: continuation risk shown by past substance abuse, instability, and failure to remediate | Court did not need to decide this element because at least one statutory ground (failure to remedy) was proved; implied agreement with DCS concerns |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Mother: more time should be allowed for stabilization after release | DCS: children were thriving in foster/adoptive placement; need for permanency outweighed speculative future improvement | Court affirmed: totality of evidence supported best-interest finding (stability, recommendations of case manager and CASA) |
| Whether there was a satisfactory plan for the children | Mother: (implicit) plan should wait for potential reunification | DCS: adoption plan in place with foster family seeking adoption | Court affirmed: satisfactory plan (adoption) existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (recognizes constitutional parental rights but permits termination when parent cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 2001) (purpose of termination is child protection; need not wait for irreversible harm)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (termination decisions are fact-sensitive and reviewed with deference to trial court)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step analysis for whether removal conditions will be remedied: identify conditions and assess probability of remediation)
- In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review in termination appeals; clear and convincing evidence requirement)
- A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial courts may consider criminal history, substance abuse, housing, and employment in termination cases)
- In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (State need not rule out all possibilities of change; need only show reasonable probability of no change)
- In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (totality of evidence and child’s need for permanency control best-interests analysis)