Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.B., Minor Child, and S.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
49A02-1707-JT-1635
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- DCS filed CHINS for D.B. (born 2005) and two siblings in Dec 2014 based on Mother’s cocaine use, unstable housing, inadequate living conditions, and educational neglect; Children were removed and Mother admitted CHINS in Feb 2015.
- Mother had intermittent housing, employment, and treatment engagement from 2015–2017; multiple referrals for home-based case management, therapy, and substance-abuse services were closed for non‑participation.
- Mother tested positive for cocaine in Dec 2014 and admitted use again in summer 2016; she failed to provide consistent drug screens and did not complete recommended follow-up substance‑abuse services.
- Mother visited inconsistently; had not visited D.B. in over a year by the termination hearing; D.B. had lived in the same pre‑adoptive foster home since Jan 2015 and expressed a desire to be adopted by her foster mother.
- DCS changed the permanency plan to adoption in July 2016 and filed a TPR petition in Aug 2016; the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on June 26, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions leading to removal will be remedied (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | Mother failed to remedy housing, employment, substance‑abuse, and engagement issues despite services; pattern shows low probability of change | Mother pointed to recent re‑engagement, employment, and testimony claiming improved stability and mental‑health treatment | Court: Clear‑and‑convincing evidence supports a reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied; termination permitted |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(C)) | DCS & GAL: termination serves child’s need for permanency; ongoing delay would harm child’s interests | Mother argued bonds and recent efforts support reunification | Court: Totality of evidence favors child’s need for permanency; termination in child’s best interests |
| Whether there is a satisfactory plan for child’s care after TPR (I.C. § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2)(D)) | Adoption by pre‑adoptive foster mother is available; child stable and thriving in placement | Mother disputed sufficiency of plan | Court: Adoption plan satisfactory; plan need not be detailed |
| Whether trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous | DCS relied on records and provider testimony supporting findings | Mother asked court to credit her testimony and reweigh evidence | Court: Findings supported by record; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (standard of review and two‑tiered review for trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (pattern of unwillingness to address parenting problems supports finding no reasonable probability conditions will change)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parental fitness judged at time of termination; courts consider changed conditions and habitual conduct)
- Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (parental failure to exercise visitation and respond to services supports termination)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency is central in best‑interests analysis)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (recommendations of case manager and advocate plus evidence conditions won’t be remedied can suffice to show best interests)
- In re S.L.H.S., 885 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (adoption is generally a satisfactory plan for post‑termination care)