In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.B., V.B., C.R., & E.R. (Minor Children), and K.R. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
48A02-1608-JT-1964
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Children were removed from the home after Mother’s arrest (April 2014) and adjudicated CHINS; they were placed with relatives and briefly with Father in late 2014–early 2015.
- Father admitted to CHINS proceedings, participated in services initially, and the court ordered placement with Father in January 2015.
- One month after placement, Father was arrested on child-molesting charges involving his girlfriend’s five-year-old; Children later were not found to have been sexually abused but one child was expected to be a prosecution witness.
- After Father’s release on bond (June 2015) his contact with DCS and the Children was minimal and intermittent; by the termination hearing Children had last seen Father 15 months earlier.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights (March 2016); after a July 2016 evidentiary hearing the trial court terminated Father’s rights; Father appealed challenging sufficiency on remedying conditions and best interests.
- The trial court found (and the Court of Appeals affirmed) that DCS proved statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence, including that conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and termination was in the Children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved under I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i) that there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | DCS: Father’s long estrangement, post-release lack of contact, pending molestation charges, and short time in care show conditions will not be remedied | Father: He substantially complied with services, desires custody, and the precise reasons for removal no longer exist | Court: Affirmed — evidence supported reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in the Children’s best interests (I.C. §31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C)) | DCS: Children thriving in aunt’s home, aunt intends to adopt, CASA and caseworker recommend termination | Father: Continued bond and claimed service compliance weigh against termination | Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence supports best interests determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (standard for appellate review of termination findings and burden of proof)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (review standard for termination decisions)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights may be terminated when parent cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but terminable under statute)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis identifying removal conditions and assessing likelihood they will be remedied)
- In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statute considers both initial removal and continued bases for out-of-home placement)
- In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (recommendations from caseworkers/CASA plus unremedied conditions support best-interests finding)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (subsection (B) is disjunctive; only one prong need be proven)