Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.H., Minor Child, and A.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
89A01-1708-JT-1781
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Child removed Nov 2015 after mother died and father was incarcerated; DCS opened services for reunification.
- Father has ~20-year substance addiction history; completed jail program and later attended outpatient treatment but relapsed multiple times through May 2017.
- Father obtained housing with DCS assistance but fell behind on rent, was subject to eviction actions, lived in unsanitary conditions, and allowed another person in violation of lease.
- Father was employed intermittently but was fired in June 2017 for missed work and did not secure new employment despite offers of help.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights Mar 2, 2017; trial court terminated rights July 19, 2017; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied (I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i)) | DCS: Father’s long-term substance abuse, relapses, unstable housing and employment, and failure to sustain progress show reasonable probability issues won’t be remedied | Father: Pointed to participation in services and progress, and bond with Child to oppose finding of unremedied conditions | Court: Affirmed — evidence and findings support reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests (I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C)) | DCS: Child has permanency and stability in uncle’s home; caseworker and CASA recommend termination | Father: Argued bond and efforts in services weigh against termination | Court: Affirmed — child thriving in placement, needs permanency; termination in best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (review standard; set-aside only if clearly erroneous)
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when trial court enters findings)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (findings clearly erroneous only when record contains no supporting facts)
- In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (parental rights protected by Fourteenth Amendment)
- In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (termination justified when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
- In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (child’s interests subordinate to parent’s in termination analysis)
- In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court must judge parent’s fitness at time of termination hearing)
- A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (court may consider criminal history, substance abuse, housing, employment)
- Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (consider parent’s response to services)
- In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (need only show reasonable probability behavior will not change)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (past behavior can predict future behavior despite changed conditions)
- In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (best-interest analysis considers totality of evidence and permanency)
- McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court need not wait for irreversible harm before terminating)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency central to best-interests determination)
- In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (caseworker and CASA recommendations plus unremedied conditions support best-interests finding)