Appellate court: Termination of father’s parental rights not erroneous

A Marion County father has lost his appeal of the termination of his parental rights after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined the termination was not clearly erroneous.

After mother D.P. admitted that her child R.L.-P. was a child in need of services, the Marion Superior Court conducted a CHINS hearing and found that D.P. had reported domestic violence involving M.E., the child’s father. The court also found that the Department of Child Services had only had two telephone contacts with M.E. and that the father did not have stable housing, had not participated in services to address his substance abuse or domestic violence issues, had never appeared in court and had not demonstrated an ability or willingness to parent her. R.L.-P. was then adjudicated as a CHINS and later removed from D.P.’s home and placed in foster care. 

The child was placed in a pre-adoptive home, though M.E. indicated he wanted R.L.-P. to be placed with her paternal grandfather. Meanwhile, M.E. was unable to complete his recommended services, so DCS petitioned to terminate his parental rights.

Then, after at a meeting with R.L.-P.’s foster family and paternal grandfather, DCS concluded the grandfather had not been able to answer their questions as adequately as the foster family, so the child’s placement was not changed. The TPR petition proceeded, but M.E. filed a motion to dismiss, asserting he and D.P. had consented to the grandfather adopting R.L.-P., so the TPR proceedings were unnecessary.

But the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and terminated M.E.’s parental rights. The father then appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss in In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.L.-P. (Minor Child) and M.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, 18A-JT-2083.

But the appellate court disagreed, finding M.E. was not authorized by the termination of parental rights statute to file his motion. The court likewise found no basis in Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4.5 for the trial court to have sua sponte dismissed the termination.

Additionally, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the termination of M.E.’s parental rights was in R.L.-P.’s best interests, despite the father’s contention that she should have been placed with her paternal grandfather during the CHINS proceedings.

“Even if we were to assume, without deciding, that these were relevant considerations for the TPR court, Father’s argument overlooks that paternity was not established until October 2017, approximately one and one-half years after the CHINS proceedings were initiated and a little over a year after Child was actually removed from Mother’s care,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the court. “Thus, Grandfather had no legal status in Child’s life until that time, and there was no evidence that Grandfather had any previous contact or bond with Child or that he was even willing to foster Child during the early stages of the CHINS proceedings.”

Finding that DCS had a satisfactory plan existed for R.L.-P.'s care and treatment that was not clearly erroneous, the appellate court concluded there was no error in the trial court’s termination of M.E.’s parental rights.