In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.C. (Minor Child) and A.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 198
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Child, born February 17, 1999, was removed after CHINS petition due to squalid living conditions and mother's psychiatric hospitalization; Father, who is deaf, struggled to participate in court-ordered services.
- DCS coordinated with Deaf Community Services to provide accommodations; Father often did not participate in counseling, assessments, or court-ordered services.
- Foster parents later sought adoption; custody shifted, and they eventually consented to adoption given Child’s special needs and stability concerns.
- Father maintained supervised visitation but failed to consistently attend hearings or complete services; by 2013 visits ceased, and no contact occurred for two years prior to termination.
- DCS filed a termination petition on May 19, 2014; trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on September 29, 2015; Child remains in a stable foster placement desirous of adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA applies in termination proceedings | Father claims ADA requires accommodations in termination cases | DCS allegedly failed to accommodate disability, making termination invalid | ADA does not apply; waiver and substantial compliance prevailed |
| Whether Father waived the ADA issue by failure to raise it below | Waiver due to lack of preservation | Record shows no ADA-specific objections below | Issue waived; even if considered, discrimination claim cannot overturn termination |
| Whether DCS provided reasonable accommodations for Father | ADA required reasonable accommodations | DCS provided interpreters and explanations for services; Father did not cooperate | DCS reasonably accommodated; no violation of ADA under Stone framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Daviess Cnty. Div. of Children and Family Servs., 656 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (ADA not prerequisite to termination; services provided in CHINS, not termination; cannot attack otherwise)
- In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 (Ind. 2014) (fundamental error requires egregious due process violation; here not satisfied)
- State In Interest of K.C., 362 P.3d 1248 (Utah 2015) (ADA applies in termination but requires clear accommodation; distinguishable fact pattern)
- In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (first-time-appeal ADA issue; not binding for Indiana; supports waiver concept)
- York v. Frederic, 947 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (waiver for failure to develop cogent argument per Rule 46(A)(8))