In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.S. (Minor Child) and D.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 49A02-1707-JT-1499

K.S., born 2012, was removed from Mother in 2015 after a newborn tested drug-positive; DCS placed K.S. with a relative because Father had recent positive drug tests and little prior relationship with the child.
The trial court adjudicated K.S. a CHINS and ordered Father to complete substance assessment/treatment, random drug screens, home-based services, and supervised parenting time; Father later had supervised then therapeutic visits and bonded with K.S.
DCS placed K.S. in a temporary trial visit with Father and his live-in girlfriend B.B. in June 2016; during the ~3.5 month placement the home became unsanitary, unauthorized persons (including Father’s brother) lived there, and Father abused substances.
Father’s brother overdosed on heroin in the home in October 2016; Father admitted using methamphetamine that day; DCS removed K.S. on October 4, 2016 and changed permanency plan to adoption on October 19, 2016.
DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights in December 2016; at the June 2017 termination hearing the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that (1) the removal conditions would not be remedied, (2) continuation of the relationship threatened K.S.’s well-being, and (3) termination served K.S.’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
1. Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied	DCS: Father continued substance use, allowed unsafe/unsanitary home and risky persons in the home, and failed to sustain therapy — so conditions will not be remedied	Father: He made progress, bonded with K.S., had clean screens at times and completed some services; argues evidence insufficient	Held: Court affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports finding conditions would not be remedied
2. Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child’s well-being	DCS: Father’s untreated substance abuse, poor judgment, and failure to address child’s special needs threaten emotional/physical development	Father: Termination cannot be based merely on availability of a better adoptive home; he had improved and bonded with K.S.	Held: Court affirmed — continuation posed a threat given Father’s habits, relapse, and failure to meet K.S.’s needs
3. Whether termination is in the child’s best interests	DCS: Termination enables adoption into a stable home that will meet K.S.’s therapeutic and developmental needs	Father: He has shown commitment, created bonding and took steps toward reunification; termination is premature	Held: Court affirmed — termination is in K.S.’s best interests given Father’s inconsistent compliance, relapse, and poor judgment

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing burden in termination cases)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (termination supported where child’s emotional and physical development are threatened)
In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (court need not wait for permanent impairment before terminating parental rights)
In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (consider parent’s habitual conduct and changed conditions when assessing threat to child)
K.E. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (termination should not be based solely on existence of a better home)
A.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. 2016) (parental rights not to be terminated solely because a better home exists)