In the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of H.L. (Minor Child), C.L. (Mother) and L.F. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.), 89A01-1604-JT-911

Child born July 3, 2014 with opiates in her system; Mother admitted heroin use during pregnancy and continued substance abuse. Father was incarcerated at birth. DCS intervened and Child was removed October 24, 2014.
Parents admitted allegations in an amended CHINS petition; Child adjudicated CHINS and dispositional order required substance treatment, random drug screens, visitation, and stability goals.
Mother completed inpatient treatment but repeatedly relapsed, missed services and visits, incurred multiple arrests/convictions, and was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing. She lacked stable housing and income.
Father was incarcerated for most of Child’s life, attended only two visits, failed to maintain contact with DCS when released, and was convicted of methamphetamine possession during the case. He completed some programs while incarcerated.
DCS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; after a factfinding hearing the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied and (2) termination was in Child’s best interests. The court’s termination order was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal or continued placement will not be remedied	Mother argued insufficiency of evidence that her substance abuse, repeated incarcerations, and service noncompliance would not be remedied	Father argued insufficiency of evidence that his incarceration, lack of contact, and failure to complete services would not be remedied	Affirmed: Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported that both parents were unlikely to remedy conditions (relapse, repeated incarcerations, failure to engage in services, lack of income/housing, minimal contact with Child)
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests	Mother argued termination was not shown to be in Child’s best interests	Father argued termination was not shown to be in Child’s best interests	Affirmed: Court found Child thriving in a stable preadoptive home, had little or no parent-child bond, and termination served Child’s best interests

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and burden of proof in parental termination cases)
Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear-and-convincing proof that child’s development is threatened supports termination)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court must evaluate initial removal conditions and reasons for continued out-of-home placement)