In the Termination of the Parent Child Relationship of: S.H. (Minor Child) and B.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 21A05-1612-JT-2793

Child born May 2014; initial CHINS adjudication in Sept. 2014 due to Mother's substance abuse; Father awarded custody and CHINS case later closed subject to conditions.
In Aug. 2015 Mother was arrested for drug use while caring for Child; Father had allowed Mother unsupervised parenting time; DCS removed Child from Father and filed second CHINS petition.
At the CHINS dispositional order Father was required to maintain housing/employment, complete substance-abuse and psychological evaluations, attend services and visits, notify DCS of address/charges, and submit to drug screens; Father failed to comply, did not participate in services, and admitted past heroin use and homelessness.
Father was incarcerated Jan–Aug 2016 for a theft conviction; DCS filed to terminate parental rights March 2016; Father initially declined appointed counsel but counsel was appointed in Aug. 2016 when Father remained hard to locate.
Father was released shortly before the fact‑finding hearing and did not appear at the Oct. 25, 2016 hearing; his appointed counsel attended, stipulated to DCS exhibits, did not cross‑examine witnesses, request a continuance, or offer a closing argument.
Juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights Nov. 15, 2016; on appeal Father claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DCS/Appellee Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at the termination hearing	Counsel failed to move for continuance when Father was absent, failed to cross‑examine witnesses or make argument, and failed to object to exhibits	Counsel attempted to locate Father and the record contained overwhelming evidence supporting termination; any additional advocacy would not have changed outcome	Counsel’s performance, though limited, was not so defective as to deny a fundamentally fair hearing; ineffective‑assistance claim rejected

Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental interests subordinate to child’s best interests; termination is last resort)
Baker v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. 2004) (standard for assessing ineffective assistance in parental‑termination appeals)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination severs parental rights and is extreme sanction)
Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1992) (unchallenged trial court findings are accepted as correct on appeal)
Lang v. Starke County Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellant must show how counsel’s omissions would have produced a different outcome)