T.Q. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
996 N.E.2d 385
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- DCS removed six children from Parents in Dec. 2009 for unsafe home conditions and lack of supervision; children were adjudicated CHINS in Apr. 2010.
- DCS filed initial termination petitions in Dec. 2010 and the court granted termination in July 2011; this was reversed on appeal because termination petitions were filed before a dispositional decree had been in effect for six months as required by statute.
- DCS refiled termination petitions in May 2012; a second termination hearing occurred Oct. 1, 2012, where the court admitted the transcript and exhibits from the first (2011) proceeding over Parents’ objection.
- At the Oct. 2012 hearing Parents testified they had improved housing conditions, were current on bills, and Father was receiving SSD benefits; DCS presented little new contrary evidence and did not investigate current conditions.
- The trial court’s Findings relied heavily on the old (2011) record, including some findings contradicted by unrefuted testimony at the 2012 hearing.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by basing termination primarily on outdated evidence and failing adequately to consider Parents’ current circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported termination of parental rights | DCS: prior and current evidence (largely from 2011 record) show conditions not remedied and termination is in children’s best interests | Parents: their circumstances changed (clean, adequate housing, SSD income) and DCS failed to refute current conditions | Reversed — court erred by relying primarily on stale 2011 evidence and failing to weigh uncontradicted 2012 testimony; remand for fresh consideration |
| Whether use of the prior hearing record at 2012 hearing was proper | DCS: prior record admissible and probative | Parents: reliance on the older record unfair after reversal for procedural error; current conditions must be considered | Court may not base termination mainly on evidence tainted by earlier procedural error; trial must consider current conditions |
| Whether dispositional-decree timing defect required reversal of the first termination order | DCS: (conceded) timing defect existed but argued remaining elements might still be sufficient | Parents: procedural noncompliance denied them the statutorily required opportunity to remedy conditions | Reversed previously and relied upon here; timing requirement is important and the initial proceedings were tainted by lack of valid dispositional decree |
| Whether termination can be based on availability of a better foster home | DCS: children thriving in foster home supports termination in their best interests | Parents: better foster placement alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights | Held that better foster placement alone cannot justify termination; must evaluate parents’ fitness and current circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (standard of review and caution that termination is an extreme remedy)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
- Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (purpose of termination is child protection; parents’ rights are constitutional but not absolute)
- McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court may consider prior criminal history, housing, services offered, and parental response)
- Matter of Robinson, 538 N.E.2d 1385 (Ind. 1989) (dispositional decree establishes program parents must follow and frames the period for rehabilitation)