In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: I.C. and Z.S., minor children, and C.S., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1604-JT-907

Mother (C.S.) has two minor children, I.C. (born 2012) and Z.S. (born 2014); both were adjudicated CHINS and removed from her care after medical/abuse and neglect concerns.
I.C. has asthma and reactive attachment/separation issues from multiple placements; Z.S. is medically fragile (severe asthma, swallowing issue, developmental delay) and was hospitalized multiple times after parenting time.
Mother is a long-term smoker, has not been able to quit despite services; service providers sometimes smelled smoke in her home. Smoking is a known trigger for the children’s respiratory conditions.
Mother completed many services (parenting, domestic violence, therapy) but visitation remained supervised and she missed recent therapy sessions and many medical appointments for the children. Providers did not recommend unsupervised visitation.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights (June 2015); trial court found (April 2016) that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being, termination was in the children’s best interests, and a pre-adoptive foster home existed. Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to I.C.’s well‑being	The children need a permanent smoke‑free, stable home; Mother’s ongoing smoking, insufficient understanding of medical needs, missed therapy/appointments, and failure to progress beyond supervised visits create a reasonable probability of threat to I.C.	Mother contends there is no medical testimony showing her smoking endangered I.C.; risk is greater to Z.S. and not proven as to I.C.	Court held DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability that continuation posed a threat to I.C.’s well‑being (affirmed).
Whether Mother’s compelled admission she previously smoked marijuana violated her Fifth Amendment privilege and denied a fair trial	DCS relied on the record overall; any compelled admission was harmless because it was limited, not emphasized, and not relied on in the termination order.	Mother argues the court forced her to choose between self‑incrimination or contempt/credibility loss, and that the compelled admission was highly prejudicial.	Court held the brief admission did not prejudice the termination decision and Mother was not denied a fair trial (affirmed).

In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (standard of appellate review in termination cases)
In re N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2016) (proof required for termination by clear and convincing evidence)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights subject to termination when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (court need not wait until child is irreversibly harmed before terminating parental rights)
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) (Fifth Amendment privilege applies to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (Fifth Amendment privilege extends beyond criminal trials to other proceedings when answers might incriminate)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled incriminating testimony)
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (scope of protection against use of compelled testimony in later prosecutions)
Clifft v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 660 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. 1995) (discussing privilege against self‑incrimination in state proceedings)