R.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 446

DCS petitioned to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights to K.T.K., K.R.K., and K.C.; trial court found clear and convincing evidence supports termination and best interests finding; order affirmed on appeal.
Children were removed from Mother in Oct. 2009 due to serious substance abuse and care concerns, with Father incarcerated; they were placed with relatives or foster care over time.
From Oct. 2009 to Feb. 2011, the children resided in five placements, ultimately remaining with Foster Parents after Feb. 2011.
Mother’s drug problems spanned many years, with multiple positive screens and allegations of drug use around the time of removal; she had substantial criminal history and incarcerations in 2010.
Psychological evaluations and guardian ad litem testimony described a high risk of relapse and instability, while the foster home provided stability and permanency.
An Amended Order followed a timeline of proceedings, with Mother appealing and the Supreme Court granting review to address the issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditions leading to removal will be remedied	DCS contends substantial evidence shows no remediation.	Mother argues potential for improvement exists with services.	Yes; conditions will not be remedied.
Whether termination is in the best interests of the children	DCS asserts permanency and safety require termination.	Mother argues adoption plans are premature or unnecessary.	Yes; termination in the children’s best interests.

Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (clear and convincing standard; conditions may be nonremedied even if some remedial efforts exist)
In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (two-step analysis for remediation of conditions; consider habitual pattern of conduct)
In re C.M., 675 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (permanency central to best interests; court may terminate before irreparable harm)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (parental rights may be terminated when child’s development threatened; permanency goal emphasized)
In re W.B., 772 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (only one required ground under 31-35-2-4(b)(2) to support termination)
In re J.K.G. v. Fountain Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 470 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (consideration of parent’s history in determining probability of future neglect)
Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. CYS, 458 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest; state interest in permanency)