In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Ce.S. & Ch.S. (Minor Children), and C.R. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1610-JT-2365
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Children (Ce.S. and Ch.S.) were placed in foster care after Mother abandoned them in Nov. 2014; Father was incarcerated at that time.
- Father waived fact‑finding; dispositional order (Apr. 2015) required Father to contact DCS within 72 hours of release.
- DCS petitioned to terminate Father’s rights on Dec. 2, 2015; hearing held Sept. 21, 2016; Mother consented to termination.
- Father participated telephonically, testified his earliest possible release was 2024 (hoping for time cuts), and admitted minimal contact with the children while incarcerated.
- Trial court found children bonded to foster parents in a pre‑adoptive home, Father had limited contact and prior failed relative placement, and termination was in children’s best interests.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights; Father appealed alleging lack of a fundamentally fair trial and insufficient evidence on statutory elements.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamental fairness/continuance | Trial court should have sua sponte continued or bifurcated the hearing so Father could call witnesses; counsel failed to consult and move for continuance | Father did not move for continuance or identify missing witnesses; no duty for court to sua sponte bifurcate | No deprivation of a fundamentally fair trial; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to adequately consult re: witnesses and secure continuance | Counsel conducted cross‑examination, elicited mitigative testimony, and performance did not render trial unfair | Counsel’s performance did not deny a fundamentally fair trial under Baker standard |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination (statutory elements) | Father conceded timing elements and did not contest plan or probability elements, argued termination not in children’s best interests | DCS relied on evidence of Father’s incarceration length, minimal contact, failed relative placement, children’s bonding to foster parents and therapeutic progress | Clear and convincing evidence supported findings; termination in children’s best interests affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowlett v. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (continuance decision rests with trial court)
- Baker v. County Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2004) (standard for appellate review of counsel performance in termination cases)
- In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (clear and convincing standard and appellate review limitations in termination cases)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. 2016) (review requires findings and judgment be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (best‑interests determination requires consideration of totality of evidence)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but not absolute)
- Bester v. Lake Co. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights may be terminated when parents cannot meet responsibilities)