T.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 310
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother is the biological mother of N.B. (born April 2005) and M.B. (born August 2008).
- DCS received a 2010 report that Mother left the children with a mentally handicapped 13-year-old sitter for hours; home was dirty and the children hungry, with M.B.’s broken foot improperly treated.
- Children were adjudicated CHINS and removed; dispositional orders required extensive family reunification services.
- Dr. Vandewater-Percy and Dr. Abbert found Mother had Borderline Intellectual functioning with cyclothymia and poor cognitive functioning; medications were prescribed.
- Mother repeatedly failed to comply with treatment and services, canceled many therapy sessions, and engaged in unstable housing and employment; she formed new relationships without DCS approval.
- In June 2011, DCS sought involuntary termination; at an August 2011 hearing, the court found ongoing failure to meet parental responsibilities and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the trial court entered findings supporting termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental retardation immunizes against termination | Mother argues mentally retarded parents should be immune | DCS contends statutory framework allows termination when conditions won’t be remedied and best interests require it | No; statute does not exempt mentally retarded parents from termination |
| Whether there is clear and convincing evidence to terminate | Mother asserts insufficient evidence due to mental health issues | DCS presented extensive evidence of noncompliance and risk to children | Yes; evidence supports termination under statutory grounds and best interests |
| Whether the termination was in the children’s best interests | Mother asserts alternatives were possible | Court-ordered services failed to achieve reunification; risk to children persists | Yes; termination in children’s best interests |
| Whether there was a proper plan for the care of the children | Not applicable; focus on parental faults | Adoption plan for N.B. and M.B. was appropriate and satisfactory | Yes; plan to adopt the children was appropriate and sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (termination not to punish; safety and welfare of child paramount; mental retardation alone not ground for termination)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear and convincing standard; best interests and remediability required)
- McBride v. Johnson, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. 2003) (judgment sustained when supported by proper findings and evidence)
- In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (emotional/physical development threatened; termination appropriate)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (termination not punitive; focus on child safety and well-being)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (standard for reviewing findings of fact in domestic relations)
- Robinson v. Monroe Cnty., 663 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (statutory exemptions and safety requirements viewed against unambiguous statute)