K.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
17 N.E.3d 994
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Two children (A.S., b.2009; C.S., b.2010) were removed after the death of their half-sister from ingesting prescription medication; DCS substantiated neglect/medical neglect of Mother and investigated parents’ drug use and unstable housing.
- Parents admitted to CHINS; court-ordered services (substance evaluations, parenting, counseling, supervised visitation, housing/income requirements). Early compliance led to a trial home visit in Sept. 2012.
- Trial home visit(s) terminated when Mother and Father tested positive for amphetamines/cocaine; both tested positive multiple times during CHINS/termination proceedings.
- After removal, parents failed to complete substance-abuse treatment and other services: Father attended sporadic treatment and was discharged for nonattendance; Mother attended few sessions and stopped therapy. Housing and employment remained unstable.
- DCS filed termination petitions; trial court found a reasonable probability conditions would not be remedied, continuation would threaten children, termination was in children’s best interests, and DCS had a satisfactory adoption plan. Trial court included three erroneous factual findings (timing of service initiation, Mother’s housing, Mother’s alleged statement about self-reporting), but the appellate court affirmed termination on the remaining record.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DCS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions that prompted removal will not be remedied | Parents argued they showed progress, had parenting skills, sometimes clean periods, and housing would be available (Father’s father; Mother with mother) | Parents failed to complete substance treatment and relapsed during trial visits; habitual conduct shows low likelihood of remedy | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of parent–child relationship poses a threat | Parents argued lack of proof of ongoing threat beyond need for permanency | Service providers testified children need stability; parents’ substance abuse and instability threaten children’s well‑being | Court relied on other proved element (remedy) and testimony about risk; no separate error required to be addressed |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Parents asserted permanency alone is insufficient and pointed to prior compliance and positive parenting assessments | DCS cited totality: >2 years out of home, relapse during trial visits, service noncompletion, and unanimous professional recommendations for permanency | Affirmed: combined evidence and recommendations satisfy best‑interests requirement |
| Whether DCS had a satisfactory plan for care and treatment (adoption) | Parents contested plan because proposed relative limited contact unless rights terminated and adoption not guaranteed | A plan to pursue adoption is legally sufficient; adoption suitability is for adoption court to decide | Affirmed: DCS’s adoption plan is a satisfactory post‑termination plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest but not absolute; termination is last resort)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in child rearing)
- In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (termination appropriate when parents unable/unwilling to meet responsibilities)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (State must prove each statutory element of termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (recommendations of case manager/CASA plus evidence that conditions won’t be remedied can establish best interests)
- Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E.2d 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (DCS plan need not be detailed; an adoption plan can be a satisfactory plan)
- In re D.J., 755 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (suitability of adoptive home is determined in adoption proceedings, not termination)
- Tipton v. Marion Cnty. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 629 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (living with extended family can provide a safety net for children)