In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.D. (Minor Child) and D.D (Mother) and G.D. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 30A01-1706-JT-1433

S.D., born 2003, was removed from parental care and adjudicated CHINS multiple times (2005, 2007, 2009, 2015) due to concerns including sexual abuse exposure, medication overdose, parental cognitive deficits, instability, domestic violence, and unsafe housing.
DCS provided repeated services (home‑based therapy, casework, domestic‑violence victim services, housing/life‑skills assistance); Parents attended some services but failed to achieve treatment goals or sustained stability.
Father has significant mental/physical disabilities, has never had primary care of the Child, and lived in assisted living; Mother has chronic instability (≈15 moves), housing safety and violence/drug exposure issues, and limited progress in five years of therapy.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights on December 12, 2016; a two‑day evidentiary hearing was held May 22–23, 2017; the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights on June 9, 2017.
The juvenile court found (based on testimony and records) that conditions prompting removal were unlikely to be remedied, parents had not benefited from services, the home posed health/safety hazards, and neither parent had capacity to parent the Child.
Parents appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence (particularly that conditions could be remedied) and that DCS relied on self‑authenticating exhibits admitted without live witness testimony, violating due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Parents)	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to show conditions leading to removal would not be remedied	DCS: Parents failed to achieve stability despite extensive services; home and parental limitations persist making remedy unlikely	Parents: Child had shelter, education, needs met; they participated in services and could improve	Court: Held evidence (testimony + records) clearly convincing that conditions were unlikely to be remedied; affirmed
Whether continuation of parent‑child relationship posed threat to child	DCS: Even if not separately relied on, safety/instability posed risk	Parents: Argued no evidence of deprivation or endangerment	Court: Did not need to decide because first prong satisfied; termination proper
Whether admission of many DCS exhibits violated due process	DCS: Exhibits were court records and historical background; many admitted without objection	Parents: Admission of self‑authenticating exhibits deprived them of cross‑examination and background	Court: Most exhibits admitted without objection (waived); remaining exhibits admissible as historical court records and relevant background; no reversible error
Whether termination was in Child's best interests and plan satisfactory	DCS: Continued services failed; termination protects Child; plan exists for care	Parents: Asserted bonds and ability to care	Court: Found termination in Child’s best interests and a satisfactory plan existed; affirmed

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 child)
In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination standard and child’s interests can override parental rights)
In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review for termination findings; § 31‑35‑2‑4(B)(2) disjunctive analysis)
In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (identify removal conditions and assess probability of remedy)
McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (permissible evidence for future neglect includes prior history, services offered, and parent response)