In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.W. and D.C. (Minor Children), and J.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A05-1607-JT-1663
Ind. Ct. App.Jan 24, 2017Background
- Father (J.W.) and Mother are parents of two children adjudicated CHINS after concerns including medical neglect, parental substance abuse, unstable housing, and missed medical appointments for one child.
- Over several years Father repeatedly failed to comply with DCS-ordered services, had multiple positive drug screens, missed drug tests and visits, and lacked stable housing; children were ultimately removed and placed for adoption.
- DCS changed the permanency plan to adoption (Oct. 29, 2014) and later filed a verified petition for involuntary termination of Father's parental rights (Mar. 22, 2016).
- At the initial termination hearing Father said he wished to sign consents for adoption, but he was unrepresented at that moment; the court appointed counsel and a GAL and scheduled further hearings to ensure voluntariness of any consent.
- Father repeatedly failed to appear at subsequent pretrial and evidentiary hearings, did not execute consent in open court after receiving required advisals, and had not seen the children for over a year; the trial court terminated his parental rights involuntarily (June 30, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by entering an involuntary termination when Father indicated he wished to consent to adoption | DCS argued termination was proper because Father never gave an informed, in-court consent and DCS proceeded under involuntary termination statutes | Father argued his expressed willingness to sign consents should have produced a voluntary termination instead of an involuntary one; he contends involuntary termination could harm future reunification efforts | Court held no error: Father never provided written or in-court informed consent after receiving statutorily required advisals and waived the opportunity by failing to appear; involuntary termination was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (standards for appellate review and parental liberty interest in termination proceedings)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental fundamental liberty interest)
- In re M.R., 728 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (procedural safeguards required for voluntary parental consent to termination)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clarifying standard of review for termination findings)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (termination as a last resort; parental rights subordinated to child’s best interests)