In the Matter of the Termination of Parents Rights of: B.L.P. (Minor Child) and Br.L.P. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
91 N.E.3d 625
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Child (born 2005) was placed in foster care in 2013 after maternal grandmother could no longer care for him; DCS filed CHINS petition. Father had been incarcerated (Georgia) until 2014 and moved to Georgia in 2008.
- Dispositional order (2013) required Father to complete a diagnostic evaluation after release and authorized supervised visitation; Father participated telephonically at hearings and in supervised Skype calls beginning 2014.
- Father maintained steady full-time employment since 2013, obtained stable housing in Georgia, and paid for part of a diagnostic assessment but discontinued further paid sessions due to cost and perceived provider delays. He participated in about 75% of supervised Skype visits; missed sessions were largely technological.
- DCS requested an ICPC evaluation for placement with Father; evaluator recommended against placement citing fire-damage concerns and Father’s criminal history.
- DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights (July 2016); trial court granted the petition (April 11, 2017). Father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and contesting use of the ICPC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICPC applies to placement with out-of-state parent | DCS: ICPC-based evaluation appropriate (rules/regulations support evaluation) | Father: ICPC does not apply to placement with a biological parent | Court: ICPC does not apply to placement with an out-of-state parent; trial court reliance on ICPC discounted |
| Whether conditions that led to removal are unlikely to be remedied | DCS: Father remained inconsistent, failed to complete evaluation, and has limited in-person contact | Father: Completed probation, steady employment, stable housing, positive supervised contact; financial/travel constraints explained missed compliance | Court: Evidence insufficient to show a reasonable probability that removal-conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of parent-child relationship threatens child’s well-being | DCS: Missed visits, limited in-person contact, incomplete court-ordered evaluation threaten child | Father: Missed Skype sessions due to technology; cooperated with DCS; stopped evaluation for cost and process confusion | Court: Record does not show clear and convincing evidence that continuation poses a threat |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | DCS: Permanency via adoption better for child’s stability | Father: Has improved, maintains employment/housing, positive bond-building efforts; foster placement adoption uncertain | Court: Not persuaded termination is in child’s best interests at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- D.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 43 N.E.3d 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (ICPC does not apply to placement with an out-of-state parent)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and burden in termination proceedings)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (termination may be shown if child’s emotional or physical development is threatened)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (incarceration alone insufficient basis for terminating parental rights)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (parent fitness is judged at time of termination hearing)
Outcome: Trial court’s termination order reversed and remanded.