Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.H. & B.H. (Minor Children), and T.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 256
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother T.H. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two sons, B.L.H. and B.J.H., in Miami County.
- MCDCS filed CHINS petitions in 2008–2009 and sought termination in 2010 and again in 2012 after ongoing concerns.
- Parents’ housing instability, unemployment, and minimal engagement with court-ordered services persisted over several years.
- A social worker, Jillorna Uceny, administered a Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI) during the termination hearing.
- Uceny’s CAPI testimony was admitted as expert testimony; findings showed high risk indicators and recommended termination.
- The trial court terminated parental rights; on appeal, issues include admissibility of evidence and sufficiency to support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uceny could testify as an expert despite being a social worker | Mother argues exclusion under 25-23.6-4-6 and Rule 702 | MCDCS argues Rule 702 controls; social workers may be expert witnesses | Rule 702 controls; Uceny properly qualified as an expert |
| Whether CAPI is sufficiently reliable to support expert testimony | Mother challenges reliability; insufficient evidence cited | MCDCS maintains CAPI is established, normed, and widely used | CAPI testimony rests on reliable principles and was admissible |
| Whether Stolinas' progress reports and testimony were properly admitted | Mother objects to hearsay and admissibility | Reports were relevant to termination purpose; testimony corroborative | Admission was error but harmless; does not defeat termination |
| Whether there is clear and convincing evidence that conditions will not be remedied | Mother contends improvements were possible and services could help | Mother failed to participate and improve; conditions unlikely to be remedied | There is clear and convincing evidence that conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether termination was in the best interests of the children | Mother argues best interests were not established to require termination | Children thriving in foster care; termination appropriate for safety and stability | Termination is in the children's best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.J., 877 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for admissibility of evidence; harmless error safe harbor)
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental rights termination standards; sufficiency review)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence; best interests standard)
- Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Rule 702 factors for reliability; expert testimony admissibility)
- Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2002) (reliability considerations for scientific evidence)