Termination: RW v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A03-1609-JT-2137

Background

Mother and Father lived with Mother’s elderly mother; repeated concerns about housing, cleanliness, and substance use led to CHINS proceedings for older child D.H. (2013) and newborn S.W. (2015).
Parents moved from a condemned trailer to a home with hazards and then to a single-room motel; they lacked stable employment and relied on grandmother’s Social Security.
Mother had repeated arrests and incarcerations for possession of synthetic drugs, inconsistent participation in treatment and drug court, and confirmed positive drug tests during the case; she left a residential program early and accrued unpaid fees.
Father displayed unresolved anger management issues, threatened service providers, refused ordered counseling, and had only one supervised visit with S.W. during the proceedings.
DCS provided intensive services over roughly two years with little measurable progress; children were placed in foster care, bonded to the foster parent, and the guardian ad litem and DCS recommended termination of parental rights.
Trial court terminated Father’s rights to S.W. and Mother’s rights to D.H. and S.W.; both parents appealed arguing insufficient evidence to support termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence shows reasonable probability conditions causing removal will not be remedied	DCS: parents made insufficient progress after prolonged services; ongoing substance abuse, unstable housing, and Father’s anger indicate low likelihood of remedy	Mother/Father: argue efforts made, short incarcerations impeded compliance, S.W. has no current special needs, Father can care for S.W.	Held for DCS: clear and convincing evidence supports reasonable probability conditions will not be remedied
Whether continuation of parent-child relationship poses threat to child’s well-being	DCS relied on neglect history, substance use, housing, and parental conduct	Parents disputed the factual predicate and urged court to consider changed conditions	Court did not expressly find continuation poses threat but found remedy unlikely; judgment affirmed on other statutory ground
Whether termination is in children’s best interests	DCS/guardian ad litem: children need stable, nurturing home; foster parent bonded and seeks adoption; children receiving needed services	Parents: requested more time post-release/employment; suggested relative placement (Father’s adult daughter)	Held: termination is in children’s best interests based on totality of evidence, bonding with foster parent, and parents’ lack of progress
Whether DCS considered relative placement (placement with Father’s adult daughter) before termination	Father argued DCS failed to prioritize relative placement per statute	DCS/guardian: relative was considered; initial reluctance from relative and late contact limited placement	Held: father’s placement complaint challenges DCS plan more than best-interest finding; case manager testified relative was being considered; court’s best-interest determination stands

Key Cases Cited

In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest but may be terminated when parents cannot meet responsibilities)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest)
Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. 2003) (recognition of the value of the parent–child relationship)
In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (parental rights may be terminated when parents are unable or unwilling to meet responsibilities)
In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court must evaluate current parental fitness and habitual patterns when assessing changed conditions)
Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. 1992) (DCS must prove termination allegations by clear and convincing evidence)