Termination: JR v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 32A04-1611-JT-2489

D.H., born 2008, was removed from Father in July 2014 after reports and positive drug screens showing Father used heroin, cocaine, and other drugs in the child’s presence; Mother also tested positive for methamphetamine and THC and had long periods without contact.
Both parents were adjudicated CHINS, ordered into substance-abuse treatment, random drug screens, supervised visitation, and required to obtain stable housing and employment.
Both parents repeatedly relapsed, were unsuccessfully discharged from treatment programs, failed to secure stable housing or employment, and continued to test positive for drugs during the CHINS case.
D.H. lived with paternal grandparents since removal, attended therapy twice weekly, and was diagnosed with PTSD; grandparents planned to adopt (and suggested guardianship as an alternative).
DCS filed to terminate parental rights in October 2015; caseworkers, the GALs, and service providers testified termination would provide necessary stability and permanency.
The trial court terminated both parents’ rights in a detailed order; parents appealed claiming insufficient evidence on remedial probability, threat to child, best interests, and satisfactory plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditions leading to removal are reasonably probable not to be remedied	DCS: Parents’ repeated relapses, failed treatment compliance, and lack of stable housing/employment show low probability of remediation	Mother/Father: Argued improvements or that conditions could be remedied	Court: Affirmed — evidence supports reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied
Whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child	DCS: Patterns of substance abuse and instability threaten D.H.’s well‑being	Mother/Father: Argued insufficient proof of current threat	Court: Need only prove one prong of § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B); relied on unremedied conditions prong and did not need to decide this separately
Whether termination is in child’s best interests	DCS: Permanency and stability through adoption serves D.H.’s emotional and developmental needs	Mother/Father: Argued parents can provide care and guardianship is adequate	Court: Affirmed — service providers and GALs testified termination was in D.H.’s best interests given his need for permanency
Whether there is a satisfactory plan for child’s care and treatment	DCS: Plan is adoption by foster parents (paternal grandparents)	Father: Argued guardianship was an equally satisfactory plan	Court: Adoption by foster parents is a satisfactory plan; rejected reweighing evidence to prefer guardianship

In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (parental liberty interest and subordinate child’s interests)
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis for conditions leading to removal)
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review principles)
In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. 2016) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (factors showing habitual conduct and use of services as evidence)
In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (child’s need for permanency central to best-interests analysis)
In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (totality of evidence for best-interests determination)
McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (service providers’ testimony can support best-interests finding)
In re L.B., 889 N.E.2d 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (plan for care need not be detailed; adoption can be satisfactory plan)
In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (adoption as satisfactory plan)
Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (standard for reversing termination for clear error)