In the Termation of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.P. and T.P. (Minor Children), and J.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
26A01-1702-JT-424
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Mother (J.P.) suffers from diagnosed mental illnesses (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, later amended to include borderline personality disorder and PTSD) and had episodes of hospitalization and medication noncompliance while two children (A.P., born 2003; T.P., born 2002) were in her care.
- In early 2015 DCS removed the children after a hospitalization and home conditions showing extreme clutter and insect infestation; children were placed in foster care and required counseling (A.P. diagnosed with PTSD/adjustment disorder related to neglect).
- Mother’s engagement with services was poor: she disputed providers, missed or canceled visits, refused to acknowledge parenting problems, and maintained relationships with a partner who used illegal drugs and contributed to household instability.
- Visits ended after a May 2016 incident in which Mother attempted to persuade the children to leave with relatives against their wishes and became confrontational with the visitation supervisor; children were distressed and visitation was terminated.
- DCS filed to terminate parental rights in August 2016; after hearings the trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence that (1) the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied, (2) termination was in the children’s best interests, and (3) an adequate post-termination plan existed; the court terminated Mother’s rights in January 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (reasonable probability conditions leading to removal will not be remedied) | DCS: Mother’s chronic mental-health issues, lack of progress in services, unsafe home, and destabilizing relationships show reasonable probability of non-remediation | Mother: Insufficient evidence; termination premature because she was receiving treatment and could improve | Held: Sufficient evidence that conditions would not be remedied (trial court findings supported by record) |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | DCS: Children improved materially in foster care; caseworker and CASA recommended termination; foster parents seek adoption | Mother: Children should wait for further progress in her mental-health treatment and reunification efforts | Held: Termination was in children’s best interests due to need for permanency and children’s improvement in foster placement |
| Whether Mother’s mental illness alone precludes termination | Mother: Mental illness should bar termination or require more time for treatment | DCS: Mental illness may be considered where it prevents fulfillment of parental duties | Held: Mental illness does not bar termination; it can be considered if it results in inability/unwillingness to parent and was shown here to affect parenting |
| Whether DCS provided an adequate plan for post-termination care | Mother: Plan inadequate, so termination improper | DCS: Foster placement with prospective adoptive parents is satisfactory | Held: Court found a satisfactory plan; Mother’s challenge tied to prematurity argument which was rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental liberty interest and standard of review in termination cases)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (value of parent-child relationship)
- Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (DCS burden to prove termination allegations by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (children need permanency; courts need not wait for irreversible harm)
- K.T.K. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (permanency and timing considerations in termination)
- Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (grounds for termination when child’s development is threatened)
- In re A.S., 905 N.E.2d 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (parental mental illness can be considered when it prevents parental obligations)
- In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (consideration of initial removal and continued reasons for out-of-home placement)
- A.D.S. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (judging parent fitness at time of termination and evaluating habitual patterns)
- T.B. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (mental illness does not automatically bar termination)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (parental responsibilities and grounds for termination)