Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of K.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 712

Background

K.E. born July 2012; both parents had been charged in connection with a methamphetamine lab; Father was incarcerated and later convicted and sentenced to an executed term.
K.E. was removed from Mother’s care at four months after being left unattended; DCS adjudicated K.E. CHINS and placed him with paternal aunt H.D., who provides stable care and visitation with Father.
Father completed numerous voluntary programs in prison (parenting, substance-abuse, self-improvement), maintains regular visitation and nightly phone contact with K.E., and planned to live/work with his father on release.
DCS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights to K.E.; the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the conditions leading to removal were unlikely to be remedied, (2) continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat, (3) termination was in K.E.’s best interest, and (4) adoption was a satisfactory plan.
The Court of Appeals affirmed as to Father; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed termination of Father’s parental rights, while summarily affirming termination as to Mother.

Issues

Issue	DCS / Plaintiff's Argument	Father / Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the conditions that led to K.E.’s removal will not be remedied	Father’s incarceration, criminal/drug history, lack of demonstrated ability to provide housing/employment on release make remediation unlikely	Father has substantially improved in prison (12 programs, AA/NA), bonded with child, has a release date and a plan for housing/employment; incarceration alone insufficient	Reversed: insufficient evidence that conditions would not be remedied
Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses a threat to child’s well‑being	Father’s criminal/drug history and incarceration pose ongoing risk; permanency concerns justify termination	Father’s interactions with child are healthy; aunt’s home is stable and would preserve child’s safety if Father fails; no evidence his future living plans are unsuitable	Reversed: insufficient evidence Father posed a threat
Whether permanency concerns justified immediate termination	DCS: delaying termination unduly delays child’s permanency and stability	CASA, aunt, and some testimony indicated delay would not harm K.E. and aunt was willing to adopt later if needed	Court found permanency concern alone insufficient given evidence that delay would not harm K.E.
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance to allow sentence modification efforts	DCS: release/imminence not guaranteed; continuance would only delay permanency	Father: denial prevented him from presenting changed circumstances; he had engaged in programs and had a foreseeable release plan	Court noted continuance denial not dispositive; primary reversal rested on insufficiency of evidence for statutory factors

Key Cases Cited

Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (establishes burden and framework for termination; parental improvements and bonding can weigh against finding a threat)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (incarceration alone is insufficient to support termination; courts consider program participation and release timing)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step test to identify removal conditions and evaluate whether they will be remedied)
Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (explains disjunctive elements of statutory grounds for termination)
In re J.M., 908 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. 2009) (considers parental participation in services while incarcerated and timing of release in remediation analysis)
In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (termination should not rest solely on availability of a better home)