Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of H.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1950
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- CHINS case where Mother, C.L.D., and H.H.G. had parental rights terminated regarding C.D., H.G., and E.G.; removal occurred due to incarceration and substance abuse; CASA and case manager supported permanency but hesitated on termination.
- DCS sought termination under IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2) with four statutory elements (facts alleged; conditions unlikely to be remedied or threat to child; best interests; satisfactory plan).
- Court found bond with parents and progress but concluded no identified permanent home; termination did not appear to advance stability; case remanded due to insufficient best-interests showing.
- Appellate court rejected termination on best-interests grounds after weighing evidence of parental efforts, potential early release, and lack of clear permanency plan; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Children were fourteen, eleven, and nine at termination hearing; various family placements and kinship considerations discussed; multiple improvements by parents noted but not deemed sufficient to outweigh need for permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in the children's best interests? | DCS argues need for permanency overrides ongoing parent efforts. | Parents contend continued cooperation and potential early release support reunification. | No; best-interest finding not supported; reversal and remand. |
| Have conditions that led to removal been remedied or is continuation of the relationship a threat? | DCS asserts conditions unlikely to be remedied and parental relationship a threat. | Parents argue progress and potential for stability upon release. | Court found insufficient evidence that conditions will not be remedied or that continued relationship threatens well-being. |
| Is there a satisfactory plan for the child's care and permanency (e.g., adoption) sufficient under the statute? | DCS asserts adoption as a satisfactory plan. | Parents argue plan may be open or rapidly evaluable post-release. | Plan deemed satisfactory but not conclusively in best interests; reversal on best-interests grounds. |
| Did DCS adequately consider placement options and permanency planning relevant to termination? | DCS claims placement is CHINS concern, not termination; plan sufficient. | Placement relevance to permanency should inform termination decision. | Placement evidence may be relevant; court remanded to reassess best interests in light of permanency needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (parental rights not absolute; must subordinate to child’s best interests)
- In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (termination appropriate where parents unable or unwilling to meet responsibilities)
- Angela B. v. Lake County Dep't of Child Servs., 888 N.E.2d 231 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (clear standards for assessing termination sufficiency and best interests)
- In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (permanency vs. parental efforts; court reversed termination when ongoing progress suggested)
- In re J.M., 908 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. 2009) (consideration of early release and parental efforts; not precluded from denying termination when warranted by best interests)
- Lang v. Starke County Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (adoption may be a satisfactory plan, but best interests must support termination)
- In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2010) (CHINS standard: absence of fault requirement does not preclude hearings; informs evaluation in termination)