Termination: S J-T v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
65A04-1610-JT-2393
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Parents (Mother S.J.-T. and Father K.T.) are biological parents of three children: T.T. (b.2001), L.T. (b.2010), and K.T. (b.2013). Children were placed with relatives in Sept–Oct 2014 amid allegations of an unsanitary home, domestic violence, untreated mental illness, substance abuse, and inadequate medical care for K.T. (who had neuroblastoma).
- Guardians (maternal aunt/uncle and maternal grandparents) obtained temporary guardianships; DCS filed CHINS petitions on Oct 14, 2014 and the trial court adjudicated the children CHINS at the Oct 21, 2014 hearing.
- DCS filed petitions to terminate parental rights on Jan 25, 2016; termination and guardianship hearings were consolidated and took place in 2016. Children remained with relatives and were bonded and doing well.
- Trial court found extensive, longstanding domestic violence, repeated substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, failure to comply with services (missed/ diluted drug screens, missed appointments), and a history of prior CHINS findings; it concluded there was a reasonable probability the conditions would not be remedied and termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Court ordered termination of both parents’ rights and adoption by the current guardians. Parents appealed, challenging the CHINS adjudication and (Father) arguing guardianship would be preferable to termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHINS adjudication was erroneous because children were under guardianship | Parents: A court cannot adjudicate CHINS while children are in guardianship (challenge CHINS determination) | DCS: CHINS adjudication appropriate; parents failed to challenge earlier and repeatedly admitted CHINS status | Court: Parents waived the argument by not challenging CHINS earlier; CHINS adjudication stands |
| Whether termination (vs. permanent guardianship) was error | Father: Trial court should have ordered permanent guardianship rather than terminate parental rights | DCS/Guardians: Guardianship was considered but was unworkable given parents’ history; adoption provides permanency and is in children’s best interests | Court: Trial court permissibly considered guardianship and reasonably found termination/adoption was in children’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 1996) (parental right to raise children is protected but subordinate to child welfare in termination context)
- Schultz v. Porter Cty. Office of Family & Children (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (parental rights may be terminated when parent cannot meet responsibilities)
- R.Y. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (termination standard: clear and convincing evidence)
- Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) (two-tiered review when trial court issues special findings)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (findings are clearly erroneous only when record contains no supporting facts)