Termination: BH v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem dec.)
02A05-1609-JT-2159
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- J.H., born 2003, was placed with maternal aunt Diana in 2007; Diana later was convicted of felony neglect after abusing J.H.; J.H. entered foster/residential care in 2012–2014 and has resided at Damar since August 2014.
- Mother was incarcerated multiple times (including a revocation leading to ~7 years’ imprisonment), released February 19, 2015, briefly re-incarcerated in Jan–Feb 2016, and has not had contact with J.H. since 2007.
- DCS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights on January 15, 2016; hearings occurred March 22 and May 17, 2016.
- Evidence at trial: Mother has criminal-history and probation violations, unstable housing, limited income (SSI), apparent mental-health issues, no established paternity for J.H., completed a five‑session parenting class, and limited engagement with DCS after release.
- DCS caseworker and guardian ad litem testified J.H. has developmental delays and behavioral needs, has improved at Damar, and permanency via adoption is the goal; trial court found clear and convincing evidence termination was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to terminate parental rights under Ind. Code § 31‑35‑2‑4(b)(2) (reasonable probability conditions won't be remedied or continuation poses threat) | Mother: She completed parenting class, obtained two‑bedroom housing, is on disability, and recently stabilized after release; thus conditions can be remedied and termination is unnecessary | DCS: Mother’s long criminal history, lack of contact since 2007, housing/transportation instability, mental‑health concerns, and child’s special needs make reunification unlikely and risky for child | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports that conditions will not be remedied or continuation poses threat; termination proper |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Mother: Court failed to weigh her recent improvements and suitable housing; J.H. could benefit from maternal care rather than institutionalization | DCS: Child needs permanency; GAL favored termination given Mother’s lack of involvement and J.H.’s therapeutic needs | Held: Affirmed — totality of evidence supports best‑interest finding (need for permanency, Mother’s long absence and inability to parent) |
| Whether adoption is a satisfactory plan for the child | Mother: Challenges likelihood of adoption given Damar requirements; prefers reunification attempt | DCS: Adoption is the planned permanency goal; J.H. has made progress making adoption feasible | Held: Affirmed — adoption is a satisfactory general plan for J.H.’s care |
| Whether trial court properly balanced recent changes vs. habitual conduct | Mother: Recent improvements should weigh against termination | DCS: Court may weigh long‑term patterns more heavily; recent, limited improvements insufficient | Held: Affirmed — court permissibly gave greater weight to habitual criminal conduct and long absence despite some recent steps by Mother |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (clear and convincing standard for termination)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (review deferential; balance changed conditions vs. habitual patterns)
- K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (incarceration not per se basis; criminal activity can impede parent‑child relationship)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (no bright‑line rule for release timing)
- In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385 (courts may consider continued bases for out‑of‑home placement)
- In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369 (unchallenged trial findings stand as proven)
- McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (totality of evidence and child’s need for permanency in best‑interest analysis)
- In re B.M., 913 N.E.2d 1283 (adoption is a satisfactory plan)
- In re Termination of Parent‑Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (plan for adoption need not be highly detailed)
- A.J. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 881 N.E.2d 706 (support for adoption plan in termination context)