In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.S. (Minor Child): A.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 45A03-1611-JT-2573

Child (born Nov. 2011) was removed from a caregiver in Nov. 2013 after being found dirty, non‑verbal, with sores and hair loss; DCS adjudicated the matter CHINS and placed Child in foster care.
Child has a mild developmental disability with multi‑year delays and ongoing special‑needs appointments (speech, occupational therapy); Child improved while in foster care.
Father admitted to CHINS, participated in services (therapy, supervised visits) over ~3 years but was inconsistent: missed ~40% of visits, failed to engage during visits, and never progressed to unsupervised visitation.
Father was employed part‑time, lived in a one‑bedroom apartment, relied on public transportation, and could not reliably transport Child to frequent appointments; therapist concluded Father lacked stability, decision‑making, and discipline to meet Child’s needs.
DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights (Aug. 2015); trial court found Father lacked stable housing/employment, was inconsistent with visits, could not meet Child’s special needs, and that termination (with plan of adoption by foster mother) was in Child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Reasonable probability conditions causing removal will not be remedied	Father has had 3 years of services but remains without full‑time employment, suitable housing, or reliable transportation to meet Child’s special needs	Father contends he does have housing and employment and can improve	Court: Held for DCS — Father failed to obtain necessary stability; conditions unlikely to be remedied
Continuation of parent‑child relationship poses threat to Child’s well‑being	Father cannot ensure attendance at frequent special‑needs appointments; Child would be threatened if returned	Father disputes that continued relationship poses a threat	Court: Held for DCS — evidence showed Child’s physical/emotional development would be threatened
Termination is in Child’s best interests	Child is thriving in foster placement; Father lacks stability, missed visits, and admitted foster placement may be best	Father argues termination is premature and post‑adoption contact is uncertain	Court: Held for DCS — totality of evidence favors termination for Child’s welfare
DCS has a satisfactory post‑termination plan	DCS’s plan is adoption; foster mother intends to adopt and Child is bonded and thriving	Father argues adoption might preclude post‑adoption contact	Court: Held for DCS — adoption is a satisfactory plan; post‑adoption contact is for adoption court to consider

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and clear‑and‑convincing proof in termination cases)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (termination appropriate when child’s development is threatened)
In re A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (participation without benefit does not prevent termination)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (children should not wait indefinitely for parental reunification)
In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (court need not wait for irreparable harm before terminating)
In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (best‑interests analysis focuses on child)
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (parental interests are subordinate to child’s interests)
In re M.B., 921 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2009) (limitations on conditioning termination on post‑adoption contact)
In re S.L.H.S., 885 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (adoption is a satisfactory plan)