In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.W. (Minor Child) and K.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 82A01-1707-JT-1710

Background

Mother gave birth prematurely on Dec. 28, 2015; both mother and newborn tested positive for THC and mother for opiates. DCS opened a CHINS case and ordered substance treatment, random drug screens, nurturing classes, cooperation with services, and other requirements.
Mother was arrested in Feb. 2016; despite initial participation in services, she repeatedly tested positive for alcohol and THC and failed to complete required treatment and mental-health evaluation.
DCS filed a termination petition on Dec. 12, 2016. Mother was incarcerated at times during the case and asked for a continuance of the termination evidentiary hearing to resolve a pending criminal matter; the juvenile court denied the request.
At the April 17, 2017 evidentiary hearing DCS presented evidence of ongoing criminal behavior, numerous positive drug/alcohol screens, unemployment, unstable housing, and failure to complete services. The family case manager testified termination was in the child’s best interest.
The juvenile court found (among other things) a pattern of criminal behavior and substance abuse, instability in housing and employment, and concluded the conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied; it terminated Mother’s parental rights on June 27, 2017.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion for a continuance of the termination hearing	Mother argued the continuance was needed so she could resolve a pending criminal case, complete any resulting sentence, and engage in services before the termination determination	DCS argued Mother had prior opportunity to participate in services, her release date was uncertain, and the child’s need for permanency outweighed an open‑ended continuance	Denial was not an abuse of discretion: release date unknown, Mother had prior chances to participate, and child’s need for permanency prevailed
Whether DCS proved a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied (IC 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B))	Mother argued that her pending release plus earlier participation in services could remedy the removal conditions	DCS pointed to continued criminal activity, repeated positive drug/alcohol screens, failure to complete treatment, and ongoing instability in housing/employment	Evidence clearly and convincingly supported the juvenile court’s finding that conditions were unlikely to be remedied
Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship posed a threat to the child	Mother did not meaningfully develop this argument on appeal	DCS relied on testimony about instability, substance abuse, and criminal history to show threat to child’s well‑being	Mother waived detailed challenge; court concluded continuation posed a threat and/or conditions were not likely to be remedied
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests	Mother contended she was not wholly unfit and that termination was not necessary for the child’s survival or care	DCS and the FCM argued the child needed permanency given Mother’s instability, incarceration, and ongoing substance abuse; child has special needs (cerebral palsy) increasing need for stability	Court held termination was in the child’s best interests based on totality of evidence and testimony supporting need for permanency

Key Cases Cited

Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but may be terminated to protect the child)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination may be appropriate before irreversible harm occurs)
C.T. v. Marion Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 896 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (continuance may be appropriate when incarceration ends imminently and delay would not harm children)
In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review and sufficiency framework in termination appeals)
McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court may consider criminal history, substance abuse, and response to services when assessing parental fitness)