In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.H. & L.H., (Children), and Sa.H. (Mother), and R.H. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
60A05-1608-JT-1842
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Parents R.H. (Father) and Sa.H. (Mother) are married and parents of S.H. (b. 2009) and L.H. (b. 2008); children were removed November 2014 and placed with maternal relatives.
- Removal reasons included Mother's intoxicated, violent conduct in the children’s presence, Mother's longstanding substance abuse and untreated mental-health issues, and allegations that Father physically and possibly sexually abused the children (sexual allegation unsubstantiated due to victim’s speech impairment).
- Parents moved to South Carolina after a February 2015 meeting; DCS warned out‑of‑state relocation would impede completion of reunification services. Parents did limited services in South Carolina; Father was generally uncooperative and minimized need for services.
- Mother has diagnoses including alcoholism, borderline personality disorder, PTSD; she participated inconsistently in treatment, relapsed shortly before the termination hearing, and lacked stable housing and employment.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights in March 2016; after a June 2016 hearing the trial court terminated both parents’ rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to terminate parental rights | DCS: clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds for termination and best interests | Parents: evidence insufficient; DCS failed to assist reunification; parents made progress | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support termination |
| Whether conditions that led to removal are unlikely to be remedied (changed conditions) | DCS: parents failed to remedy domestic violence, substance abuse, mental‑health issues, and Father failed to address molestation allegations or engage in services | Parents: Father completed most requirements and blamed DCS for not accepting out‑of‑state providers; Mother claimed progress and sobriety | Affirmed — trial court reasonably found reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | DCS: children have been stable and thriving with relatives for >18 months; parents have not demonstrated ability to care for them | Parents: requested more time; argued DCS did not fulfill obligation to aid reunification | Affirmed — court found termination served children’s best interests |
| Whether there was a satisfactory post‑termination plan | DCS: plan is adoption by relative caregivers, providing permanency | Parents: challenged suitability and mental‑health/discipline of relatives | Affirmed — adoption plan by relatives is a satisfactory general plan |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental liberty interest balanced against child’s welfare in termination proceedings)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parent’s fundamental right to raise children)
- Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (parent–child relationship as a valued liberty interest)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standards for termination when parents unwilling/unable to meet responsibilities)
- Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (DCS must prove termination elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court must assess current parental fitness and habitual conduct patterns)
- Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (alternative statutory bases for termination; courts need only find one)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (discussion of termination standards and sufficiency review)