In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.S., E.S., and N.S. (Minor Children), and K.S. (Mother) and D.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A05-1701-JT-168

Background

DCS removed three special-needs children from parents K.S. (mother) and D.S. (father) in Dec. 2013 after finding a filthy, condemned home, lack of food, lice, and bed bugs; children were adjudicated CHINS.
Parents received home-based services and therapeutic visitation (Dockside) beginning Feb. 2014 but made limited, inconsistent progress: transient housing, missed visits, budgeting failures, and inability to advance beyond therapeutic visits.
Parents obtained an apartment (May 2016), a car (Feb 2016), and employment only shortly before the termination hearing; the court found the apartment not yet suitable for children.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights in Mar. 2016; three-day termination hearing held Aug–Sept. 2016. CASA and GAL recommended termination; therapist testified parents could not independently meet the children’s needs.
Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in Dec. 2016, finding a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied, termination was in the children’s best interests, and DCS had a plan of adoption.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports finding a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied	Parents: they obtained housing, car, and jobs and thus remedied removal conditions	DCS: improvements came only after filing; parents’ long history of instability and failure to benefit from services predict continued inability to care for special‑needs children	Court: Affirmed — evidence (historic instability, failure to benefit from services) supports reasonable probability conditions won’t be remedied
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Parents: recent improvements mean termination is unnecessary; children’s foster placement has challenges	DCS: children need stability and parenting able to meet special needs; CASA/GAL and service providers support termination	Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence supports best interests finding; permanency outweighs parental interests
Whether DCS presented a satisfactory post-termination plan	Father: skeptical adoptive placement will be found, esp. keeping siblings together	DCS: plan is adoption and active effort to find adoptive parents	Court: Affirmed — adoption plan is a satisfactory, permissible general plan
Whether evidence was insufficient because trial court did not find continuation posed a threat to children’s well-being	Parents: argue continuation threatens children	DCS/Trial court: court did not make a threat-to-well-being finding and relied on remedial-probability ground	Court: Did not address threat theory; termination may be based on any single statutory ground — affirmed on remedial‑probability ground

Key Cases Cited

In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing termination; do not reweigh evidence)
In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (review whether evidence clearly and convincingly supports findings and judgment)
In re A.W., 62 N.E.3d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (two-step analysis identifying removal conditions then assessing probability they will not be remedied)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (parents’ fitness measured at termination hearing; past conduct can predict future risk)
In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality-of-evidence and child’s need for permanency in best-interests analysis)
In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (service-provider testimony may support best-interests finding)
In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (satisfactory post-termination plan need only indicate general direction, e.g., adoption)
In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (statutory grounds are disjunctive; proof of any single ground suffices)