Termination: JS v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
27A02-1609-JT-2282
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Child L.S. (born 2007) came to DCS attention in Dec. 2011 after police found the mother’s house in condemned, unsanitary condition; DCS placed the family on an Informal Adjustment and required services.
- L.S. was diagnosed with autism and required ongoing physical, occupational, and speech therapies; DCS provided home-based services and assistance obtaining housing and benefits.
- Mother repeatedly failed to maintain stable housing or employment, inconsistently ensured L.S. attended therapies, and on multiple occasions lacked appropriate supervision (including falling asleep during visits); L.S. was removed from Mother’s care in Mar. 2014 and remained out of the home through the termination hearing.
- Over ~4½ years of involvement, Mother participated in many offered services but made only intermittent progress, never obtained steady employment, and lacked independent housing at the time of the termination trial.
- DCS filed to terminate parental rights in Dec. 2015; the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied and that continuation of the parent-child relationship threatened the child’s well-being, and it terminated Mother’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal will not be remedied | Mother: she participated in services and improved; DCS failed to show the conditions would persist | DCS: long history of instability, failure to obtain housing/employment, inconsistent therapy compliance, and supervision problems show low likelihood of remediation | Held: Court affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supports finding conditions will not be remedied |
| Whether continuation of the parent–child relationship poses a threat to the child’s well‑being | Mother: no evidence child was harmed while in her care and she loves and bonds with L.S. | DCS: mother’s incapacity (housing, income, supervision lapses, sleepiness) threatens child’s safety, given L.S.’s special needs | Held: Court concluded threat established (court relied primarily on the unrepaired conditions analysis) |
| Sufficiency of evidence overall to terminate parental rights | Mother: termination was erroneous given her service participation and bond with child | DCS: statutory standard met by clear and convincing evidence of risk and unremedied conditions | Held: Termination affirmed; appellate court defers to trial court credibility and findings |
| Challenge to specific factual finding that Mother “depends on others to take care of her needs” | Mother: that sentence implies harm/abandonment and is unsupported | DCS: finding reflects Mother’s dependency, inconsistent care, and inability to meet child’s autism-related needs | Held: Court rejected Mother’s narrow reading and upheld the finding as supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (standard of review for termination and required clear-and-convincing proof)
- Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (only one of statutory termination grounds must be proved)
- In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014) (two-step analysis to identify removal conditions and assess reasonable probability they will not be remedied)
- A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (parental history and response to services as evidence of future risk)
- Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (appellate reversal standard for termination orders)
- In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (purpose of termination is child protection; parental rights constitutional but terminable)
- In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (termination aims to protect children; not punitive)