In the Termation of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.M.W. & K.W. (Minor Children), and M.W. (Mother) & D.W. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 59A04-1703-JT-590

Background

Mother and Father have two children: K.M.W. (b. 2003, developmentally disabled, enuresis/encopresis) and K.W. (b. 2008). DCS involvement began in 2006 for chronic neglect.
Multiple substantiations for neglect (2006, 2012, 2014); 2014 removal followed reports of extremely unsanitary home conditions, untreated scabies/lice, poor hygiene, and safety hazards.
Parents admitted CHINS in January 2015; court-ordered services and requirements (safe housing, supervision, medical care, etc.). Children placed in foster/IDTC; children improved in care.
Parents intermittently improved the home and regained unsupervised visits, but conditions repeatedly regressed (filth, pests, lack of food, broken facilities); children’s behavior regressed after visits.
Psychological evaluations: Father is moderately mentally retarded and needs support to parent; Mother has medical issues limiting capacity. DCS filed to terminate parental rights in June 2016; after hearings, juvenile court terminated parental rights and set adoption as permanency plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother/Father)	Held
Whether conditions leading to removal will not be remedied	Longstanding, repeated neglect since 2006; intermittent, unsustained improvements show low probability of durable remedy	Parents argue court relied on historical conduct and ignored changed circumstances and recent home repairs	Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied (reliance on pattern and expert testimony)
Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child’s well-being	Ongoing neglect and risk of regression if returned; expert and GAL testimony that reunification would harm progress	Parents disputed sufficiency of evidence of present danger	Court did not need to resolve this (disjunctive statutory standard); alternatively, found evidence supported risk of harm
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	Children flourished in foster/IDTC; professionals (caseworker, GAL, therapist) recommended termination; permanency needed	Parents argued DCS failed to present certain placement witnesses (placement providers) and that changed conditions favored reunification	Court held termination was in children’s best interests given children’s progress in care, risk of regression, and professionals’ recommendations
Whether DCS presented a satisfactory plan for care after termination	Adoption plan for both children was presented	Parents argued plan evidence was insufficient (lack of certain testimony)	Court found adoption is a satisfactory plan and DCS met its burden

Key Cases Cited

In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011) (standard of review for termination appeals; two-tiered review of findings/conclusions)
In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (termination is an extreme measure; used when reasonable efforts fail)
S.L. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for clear error in termination cases)
In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (consideration of changed conditions and habitual conduct in remedy analysis)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court may consider bases for continued out-of-home placement)
In re C.M., 960 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (court must consider current circumstances, not only historical conduct)
In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (recommendations of case manager and GAL, plus unremedied conditions, can show best interests)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency is central to best-interests analysis)
In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (adoption is a satisfactory permanency plan)
In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory disjunctive elements for termination)