In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.C. and A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
49A05-1706-JT-1375
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Child E.C. born Oct. 29, 2014; exposed to opioids in utero; Mother abandoned the infant in Jan. 2015 and DCS took custody.
- Father battered Mother in Dec. 2014 in the child’s presence, pled to domestic battery, and was ordered to DOC; a no-contact order exists.
- Father was incarcerated for most of the case (intermittent brief release in summer 2016); he had minimal to no contact with DCS, did not participate in parenting or domestic-violence programs in prison, and never developed a bond with E.C.
- DCS changed plan to adoption in Jan. 2016 and filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights; Mother’s rights were terminated by default.
- At the March 2017 termination hearing Father argued his imminent release (scheduled April 2017) warranted more time to pursue reunification; the trial court terminated his parental rights on June 8, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (IC § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | Father: Imminent release means he should get additional time to engage in services and reunify | Father has been absent, made no efforts to address domestic violence or parenting, and poses a risk of continued inability to parent | Court: Sufficient evidence of reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied; termination supported |
| Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship poses a threat to the child (IC § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(ii)) | Father: N/A as primary claim was for continuance due to release | DCS: Father is a stranger to child, criminal history and lack of participation shows threat to child’s stability | Court: Alternative statutory grounds satisfied (court relied on (i) but found best interests and permanency support termination) |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests (IC § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(C)) | Father: Release and housing/employment plans mean he can reunify if given time | DCS: Child has thrived in foster home since 2015; permanency via adoption is in child’s best interests | Court: Termination is in E.C.’s best interests—permanency and recommendations of FCM and GAL weigh for adoption |
| Whether DCS presented a satisfactory post‑termination plan (IC § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(D)) | Father: Plan unsatisfactory (argues implicitly) | DCS: Plan is adoption by foster parents where child has lived and thrived since 2015 | Court: Plan is satisfactory (adoption-seeking plan is acceptable) |
Key Cases Cited
- K.E. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (standards for reviewing termination and factors for changed conditions)
- Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (continuance may be warranted when incarcerated parent has demonstrated rehabilitation and imminent release)
- In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. 2016) (reversal where strong parent–child bond and substantial parent progress favored reunification)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (incarcerated parent’s demonstrated commitment to reunification can weigh against termination)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (caseworker and court‑appointed advocate recommendations plus evidence conditions won’t be remedied can show best interests)