In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.O. (Minor Child) and, B.T. (Father) and R.O. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
55A05-1705-JT-1209
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- M.O., born August 2013, was removed after mother and infant tested positive for THC and opiates; maternal grandmother has cared for M.O. since age three months.
- DCS obtained CHINS adjudication after parents failed to comply with safety plan and dispositional requirements (drug treatment, random screens, stable housing/employment, visitation, counseling).
- Mother has a long history of substance abuse, multiple relapses, arrests (including overdose in 2016), inconsistent participation in services, and only a limited parental bond with M.O.
- Father spent much of M.O.’s life incarcerated, had minimal visitation, repeated criminal conduct and relapse when not incarcerated, and limited or no engagement in services.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate parental rights in October 2016; after a May 2017 hearing the trial court terminated both parents’ rights. Parents appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Longstanding substance abuse, criminality, minimal service compliance, and habitual conduct make future remediation unlikely | Mother: has completed some programs, achieved periods of stability, and improved; Father: incarceration limited ability to participate and he would soon be released | Court affirmed: findings supported that the conditions will likely not be remedied (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | M.O. is bonded with grandmother; stable placement and testimony of case manager/CASA support termination | Parents: claim bond with child and prospects for remediation (employment/treatment or imminent release) | Court affirmed: totality of evidence supports termination as being in M.O.’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental liberty interest balanced against child welfare in termination cases)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental fundamental liberty interest)
- Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (parent–child relationship significance in constitutional context)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standards for termination proceedings)
- Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (DCS burden — clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (consideration of changed conditions and habitual patterns)
- Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (best-interest analysis in termination context)
- In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (alternative statutory grounds and proof approaches)