Description: Bloomington, Indiana family law lawyer represented respondents appealing the termination of their parental rights.


[¶4] Parents are the biological parents to De.S., born on January 14, 2013, and D.S., born on August 8, 2017. On May 30, 2020, Children were removed from Parents on an emergency basis as it was alleged that Parents were engaged in substance abuse and had neglected the educational needs of De.S., who had not attended school in a year. Parents were observed using drugs with Children present, methamphetamine was found at the residence, and Parents refused to take a drug screen at the time of Children's removal. On June 3, 2020, DCS filed its petition alleging Children to be in need of services (CHINS). Due to Parents failing to appear at the subsequent detention and initial hearings, the trial court did not adjudicate Children as CHINS until September 1, 2020. During this hearing, the trial court found that Parents suffered from a substance abuse disorder involving methamphetamine, Suboxone, and THC, which

2

negatively affected their ability to care for Children safely and appropriately, and that De.S. had not attended school in a year. On September 15, 2020, the trial court entered a dispositional order, requiring Parents to participate in reunification services, including but not limited to, maintain contact with DCS, refrain from using illegal or controlled substances without a prescription, submit to random drug screens, complete a substance abuse evaluation and recommended treatment, complete a parenting assessment, complete a psychological evaluation, attend all scheduled visitation, and maintain suitable and stable housing and income.

[¶5] Contact between Parents and DCS' family case manager (FCM) was sporadic, in part due to Parents having multiple phone numbers and not responding to calls. Mother acknowledged becoming homeless, anxious, and distrustful of DCS after Children's removal. After an initial drug screen, which was negative for methamphetamine, Mother refused further screening "on principle" as she did not believe she had a substance abuse problem even though she was receiving Suboxone treatment. (Appellants' App. Vol. II, p. 30). By November 2020, Mother was not in compliance with services and had sporadically visited with Children. Father was incarcerated from June 17 until August 20, 2020 and was noncompliant after his release.

[¶6] By March 10, 2021, Parents were still not compliant with the trial court's dispositional order. Mother had completed only half of the parenting assessment. Although she had indicated that she wanted referrals for the substance abuse assessment and psychological evaluation to be made through

3

Healthnet, she failed to complete the assessments. She had not made any progress on home-based case management. At the time, she was living with Father at a friend's house in Bedford. Father's situation was similar to Mother's: he refused or missed drug screens and failed to commence services. On March 31, 2021, the trial court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption because Parents had failed to fully engage in services. That same day, DCS filed its petition to terminate Parents' parental rights to Children.

[¶7] At the permanency hearing on June 16, 2021, it was determined that Mother had completed her parenting assessment but had not yet completed her substance abuse assessment or submitted to any drug screens. She continued to refuse drug screens, as she did not think "being a sober caregiver" was an issue for her. (Transcript Vol. I, p. 56). Mother had yet to engage in home-based case management. Father was not in compliance with the trial court's dispositional orders and had yet to complete any services. Although Parents attended scheduled visits with Children, they only attended half of the visits. During one visit, Parents appeared impaired. The visitation supervisor observed that Parents were slurring their speech, engaged in erratic and simultaneous conversation, and their eyes were glazed over. Believing Parents to be under the influence, the visitation supervisor ended the visit.

[¶8] In July 2021, Mother finally engaged in home-based case management. After a first referral in March 2021 was closed due to Parents' failure to maintain contact, a new referral was opened. Even with this second referral, Mother still

4

missed almost half of the scheduled appointments. Overall, Father consistently failed to engage in services throughout the entire case. He did not submit to any drug screens, and the only service in which he was engaged was supervised visits. At the time of the proceedings, Father had pending criminal charges of neglect of a dependent, which he had incurred when he was using and delivering methamphetamine while Children were present. Father also had pending charges of criminal confinement with a deadly weapon, domestic battery by means of a deadly weapon, strangulation, and domestic battery. Mother was the alleged victim of these charges, in which it was claimed that Father held a knife to Mother's throat, burned her with a lighter, and strangled her. He has been incarcerated since August 2021.

[¶9] Mother eventually submitted to a drug screen on August 18, 2021, two months before the scheduled termination hearing, and tested positive for methamphetamine. Prior to the termination hearing, Mother moved into a new apartment and secured employment as a home health aide.

[¶10] On October 22, 2021, the trial court conducted a factfinding hearing on DCS' petition to terminate Parents' parental rights. During the hearing, evidence was presented that between August 2020 and August 2021, seventy-one appointments for supervised visits with Children were scheduled, twenty of which Parents cancelled. At the onset of the proceedings, De.S. had not attended school in a year. He was timid and shy, and did not engage with the foster family when he was placed in their home in December 2020. After being evaluated in March 2021, De.S. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.

5

He began acting out when visits were cancelled by exhibiting self-injurious behavior, smearing feces, lighting fires, and destroying property. When he was referred for therapy and life skills services, De.S. became more relaxed and comfortable with the foster placement and established a connection with his foster sister. His behavior at home improved and he progressed academically. At the time of the hearing, De.S.'s grades were good, and he loved football. He has learned coping skills through therapy, and after the supervised visits were suspended, he was no longer acting out. At the time of the removal, D.S. was three years old and non-verbal. He was evaluated and diagnosed with developmental delays and speech impairment. D.S. exhibited negative behaviors after supervised visits and was very aggressive with violent tantrums. By the time of the termination hearing, D.S. had made progress: he talked all the time, opened up to new people, attended a developmental preschool, and received speech therapy. Children's Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and DCS' FCM both testified that termination was in Children's best interests as Parents had not established their sobriety and could not demonstrate that they were able to meet Children's needs.
S.P. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (Ind. App. 2022)

Outcome:
[¶11] On December 7, 2021, the trial court entered its Order, terminating Parents' parental rights to Children. Referencing the same evidence in support, the trial court concluded that "[t]here is a reasonable probability that the conditions which resulted in the removal of [C]hildren, or the reasons for placement outside the home of [P]arents, will not be remedied, and /or, the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of [C]hildren."


(Appellants' App. Vol. II, p. 35). The trial court found termination to be "in the best interest of the [C]hildren" and determined that "a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the [C]hildren" existed. (Appellants' App. Vol. II, p. 37).


[¶26] Based on the foregoing, we hold that DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the termination of Parents' parental rights to Children.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: