Termination: SMH v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.), 02A03-1608-JT-1869

Child (born 2005) was adjudicated CHINS after Mother’s then-boyfriend/stepfather struck Child; DCS supervised placement and obtained a no-contact order against Stepfather.
Mother initially complied with services but twice violated the no-contact order by allowing Stepfather contact with Child; DCS removed Child to foster care in 2013.
Child experienced multiple foster placements, behavioral issues, disclosures of sexual abuse, and reported access to pornography while living with Mother and Stepfather.
Stepfather pled guilty to battery, served a suspended sentence later activated; he completed parenting/anger-management and later sought counseling after release.
DCS petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights in July 2015; evidence at the termination hearing: Mother lacked stable/appropriate housing, planned to continue cohabiting with Stepfather, and professionals testified Child should not be around Stepfather and needed permanency.
The trial court terminated Mother’s rights, finding she hadn’t remedied removal reasons, posed a continuing threat, and that termination was in Child’s best interests; this Court affirmed (majority) and a judge dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether termination was in Child’s best interests	Termination not warranted; Mother completed services, cooperated, bonded with Child, and Stepfather had pursued rehabilitation; economic housing limitations made independent housing unrealistic	Mother failed to provide stable/appropriate housing, continued association with Stepfather despite professionals’ concerns, and failed to appreciate harms to Child; Child needs permanency	Affirmed: court held totality of evidence supports termination as in Child’s best interests

Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but subordinate to child’s welfare)
Peterson v. Marion Cty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility and evidence in termination cases)
R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
Bester v. Lake Cty. Ofc. 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 unsupported by the record)
Judy S. v. Noble Cty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (deference to trial court; set-aside only if clearly erroneous)
Castro v. State Ofc. of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parental history of instability supports best-interests finding)
A.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (totality of evidence and permanency needs guide best-interests analysis)