In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.J. & T.J., III and U.J. (Minor Children), And T.J., Jr. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1706-JT-1200
Ind. Ct. App.Nov 6, 2017Background
- Father (T.J., Jr.) and Mother had three children (born 2009–2011). Mother consented to adoption and is not part of the appeal.
- Family had repeated DCS involvement: informal adjustment in 2011, CHINS adjudication in 2012 after removal, reunification with Mother, then new CHINS in 2015 when Mother abandoned the children and Father was hospitalized and homeless.
- Court-ordered services repeatedly required Father to obtain housing, stable income, mental-health treatment, submit to drug screens, and attend supervised parenting time.
- Father’s participation in services was sporadic; he lost contact with DCS and service providers, services were closed for lack of contact, and he saw the children only once in the year before the termination hearing.
- At the time of the termination hearing Father had a one-bedroom apartment and part-time employment for ~4 months; DCS found housing inadequate for three children and Father never invited DCS to inspect his home.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights; Father appealed arguing insufficient evidence to support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | DCS: Father’s history of inconsistent participation, loss of contact, inadequate housing, and failure to exercise parenting time show a pattern making remediation unlikely. | Father: Claimed improved circumstances (apartment, employment, mental‑health treatment) and argued evidence was insufficient / mischaracterized. | Court: Affirmed — evidence supports a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied. |
| Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well‑being (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(ii)) | DCS: Father’s instability and sporadic engagement pose ongoing risk. | Father: Contended changed conditions reduce any ongoing threat. | Court: Found DCS met this prong as well (but relied primarily on remedial‑probability finding). |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(C)) | DCS: Long-term foster placement stability, case‑manager and GAL recommendations for termination, and children’s needs support termination. | Father: Argued permanency could be achieved with him given his recent housing and work. | Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence (placements, recommendations, unmet conditions) supports best‑interests finding. |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous | DCS: Findings reflect the record and reasonable inferences. | Father: Asked appellate court to reweigh evidence and challenge findings about housing and contact. | Court: Applied deferential review and concluded findings were supported and not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate standard for termination review)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (pattern of unwillingness to address parenting problems supports termination)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two‑tiered review when trial court makes findings)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court should judge parent’s fitness at time of termination and consider habitual conduct)
- Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to exercise parenting time shows lack of commitment)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency is central to best‑interests analysis)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (case manager and GAL recommendations plus evidence of unremedied conditions can establish best interests)