The Indiana Court of Appeals has partially overturned a trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father concerning their young child, B.T. In a split decision, the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the termination of the mother’s rights, while affirming the termination for the father. The ruling underscores the high legal bar the state must meet when seeking to permanently sever the parent-child bond, even when serious underlying issues like domestic violence and substance abuse are present.
A Troubling Background Leads to Removal
The case centers on B.T., born in April 2023, whose parents, A.L. (Mother) and J.T. (Father), had a history marked by domestic violence. Testimony revealed the Father had committed acts of violence against the Mother, including choking her with a seatbelt and causing visible injuries.
The family’s stability quickly deteriorated. The Mother was working but struggled with childcare, often having to leave work early because the Father refused to watch B.T. In October 2023, the situation reached a crisis point: the Mother was arrested for felony possession of methamphetamine and maintaining a common nuisance, admitting to using both methamphetamine and marijuana while B.T. was in her care. At the same time, the Father was incarcerated following a guilty plea for unlawful possession of a syringe.
The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) removed B.T. without a court order and placed the child with a babysitter, who eventually became the child’s foster parent. The trial court subsequently adjudicated B.T. a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) and ordered the Parents to comply with extensive services, including substance abuse assessments, maintaining stable housing, abstaining from illegal drug use, and participating in domestic violence programming.
The Path of the Parents Post-Removal
The path of both parents toward reunification was fraught with instability and non-compliance.
The Mother was sentenced to three years in the Department of Correction (DOC) in April 2024 for her drug conviction and received additional incarceration for probation violations, meaning she remained incarcerated throughout the CHINS case, with a projected release date of June 2026.
The Father, released in May 2024, cycled through seven different residences in less than a year, often failing to inform his Family Case Manager (FCM) of his moves. He was found in contempt of court in September 2024 for failing to comply with services. While he enrolled in inpatient drug rehabilitation and sober living facilities, he left one program against medical advice and was eventually asked to leave another for failing to pay dues. Furthermore, despite participating in court-ordered drug screens, the Father tested positive for various substances (THC, amphetamine, methamphetamine) on four occasions between June and October 2024.
The Mother’s Appeal: Incarceration Alone Is Not Enough
The primary issue raised by both Parents was whether “clear and convincing evidence” supported the trial court’s termination order.
The appellate court focused heavily on established Indiana precedent, noting that incarceration alone is an “insufficient basis for terminating parental rights.” The court must balance the parent’s habitual patterns against their efforts to improve while incarcerated.
In the Mother’s case, the trial court found that she had not remedied the conditions for removal, pointing to her continued incarceration and her admission of drug use in the home. However, the Court of Appeals noted uncontroverted evidence that the Mother took significant steps while in the DOC: she earned her GED, attended parenting classes, participated in six peer groups weekly, and enrolled in a recovery program.
The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by categorically disregarding these efforts. The appellate judges found that DCS failed to meet its burden to prove that the Mother could not remedy the conditions leading to the child’s removal, comparing her situation to a similar Supreme Court case where an incarcerated parent’s efforts were not adequately balanced against their history. Consequently, the order terminating the Mother’s rights was reversed, and the case was remanded.
The opinion noted, however, that the reversal does not mean the child immediately returns home. The CHINS court retains jurisdiction to ensure the child’s safety, especially given the documented history of domestic violence involving both parents.
The Father’s Appeal: Habitual Conduct Prevails
For the Father, the Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion regarding the failure to remedy removal conditions. While the Father was released from prison and participated in some services, the court found his “habitual patterns of conduct” outweighed his recent improvements.
The evidence showed the Father failed to maintain stable housing, tested positive for drugs multiple times after his release, and never completed a court-ordered parenting assessment or subsequent recommended therapy sessions. The GAL testified that the Father’s instability was “too great.” Given this consistent pattern of non-compliance and continued substance abuse issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that there was a reasonable probability the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied by the Father.
Furthermore, the appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that termination was in B.T.’s best interests. The child was thriving in the care of the foster parents, who expressed a desire to adopt, and both the FCM and the GAL recommended adoption for the sake of the child’s need for stability.
Notice Issue Waived
The Father also argued that he did not receive proper notice of the termination fact-finding hearing ten days in advance as required by statute.
The Court of Appeals found this argument was waived. Both the Father and his attorney were informed of the January 14, 2025 hearing date in open court in November 2024. Although a formal notice was mailed only eight days prior, the Father and his counsel appeared, participated fully in the two-day hearing—calling witnesses and arguing the merits—without raising any objection regarding the timeliness of the notice to the trial court. This failure to object below resulted in a waiver of the statutory notice argument on appeal.
In summary, the appellate court affirmed the termination of the Father’s rights but reversed the termination of the Mother’s rights, sending her case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.