In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.S. (Minor Child), and K.F. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 50A05-1703-JT-658

Background

S.S., born 2011, was removed from his mother's care in November 2013 after bruising and failure-to-thrive concerns; a CHINS adjudication followed and DCS obtained wardship.
S.S. has autism spectrum disorder, global developmental delays, and numerous dietary restrictions; he requires constant supervision, routine, and specialized therapies.
The child lived with a foster family for over three years; a short-lived guardianship with the maternal grandmother failed within a month.
DCS provided services to Mother over several years (counseling, RSP, visitation, psychological evaluation), but Mother exhibited unstable housing, employment, and violent/volatile relationships and was found to have below-normal intelligence and a significant personality disorder.
DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights in May 2016; following a fact-finding hearing the juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights in February 2017, finding (inter alia) that conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied and termination was in the child’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether conditions that led to removal are unlikely to be remedied	Mother’s instability, mental health, inability to implement services, and failure to meet S.S.’s special needs make remediation unlikely	Removal was originally for bruising; Mother argues court improperly relied on her inability to meet special-needs care (not the original removal reason)	Court affirmed: statute allows consideration of reasons for continued placement; evidence supports finding remediation unlikely
Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to child’s well‑being	Continuation would expose S.S. to unstable, violent, and unstructured environment that would harm his development	Mother disputes sufficiency of evidence that continuation threatens S.S.	Court did not need to decide this independently because remediability finding (disjunctive statutory standard) was satisfied; affirmed
Whether termination is in the child’s best interest	Termination advances S.S.’s need for stability, routine, and specialized care; foster placement can meet those needs	Mother contends termination is not necessary / insufficient proof termination is best	Court affirmed: testimony from DCS and psychologist and evidence of Mother’s chronic instability support best-interest finding
Whether DCS met statutory evidentiary requirements	DCS proved statutory elements (time removed, remediability/best interest, plan for child) by clear and convincing evidence	Mother argues evidence was insufficient and court erred in weighing testimony	Court applied deferential review, found evidence and findings not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (deferential review in termination appeals)
In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (review limited to evidence favorable to judgment)
In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for setting aside termination judgment)
Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights protected but not absolute)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination permissible to protect child’s development)
Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court need not wait for irreversible harm before terminating)
In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (termination appropriate when child’s development threatened)
In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (two-step inquiry on conditions leading to placement and likelihood of remediation)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (consider bases for continued placement, not just initial removal)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing burden in termination cases)
In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (testimony of case manager/psychologist can support best-interest finding)
McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court must consider totality of circumstances and subordinate parental interest when deciding best interest)