Justices affirm parental rights for homeless mother of six

A mother who fought to be reunited with her six minor children secured the Indiana Supreme Court’s favor after justices unanimously affirmed a finding that the termination of her parental rights due to her homelessness was not in the children’s best interests.

In 2015, K.H., who at the time was struggling with an alcohol addiction and homelessness, brought her six children to the Indiana Department of Child Services and stated she couldn’t care for them. The kids were all adjudicated children in need of services, and K.H. was given a parent-participation plan with 23 requirements. She was required to, in part, maintain suitable housing and employment, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, take part in counseling, enroll in home-based services, submit to random drug screens, and participate in visitations.

As 2018 approached, K.H. had successfully followed through with most of her requirements, even walking more than two hours one-way to attend AA meetings because she didn’t own a car. However, she was still unable to secure housing. DCS thus petitioned to terminate K.H.’s parental rights, citing her failure to satisfactorily comply with her parent participation plan.

Supreme Court justices affirmed the trial court’s refusal to terminate the parent-child relationships, disagreeing with the children’s guardian ad litem’s assertion that K.H.’s inability to secure housing led to the singular conclusion that her parental rights should be terminated. The Allen Superior Court refused to terminate her rights, concluding that DCS failed to clearly and convincingly show that termination was in the children’s best interests.

The GAL— who had neither met nor spoken with the children — had been the only witness to opine that the termination was in the children’s best interests. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in a memorandum decision, and the Supreme Court granted transfer to K.H.’s appeal. In In the Matter of M.I., N.I., N.I., N.I., N.I., S.I. (Minor Children); Denis Koehlinger v. K. H. (Mother); A.I. (Father) and L.M. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 19S-JT-281, the high court unanimously concluded the GAL failed to show the trial court’s decision was contrary to law. “When determining what is in children’s best interests, trial courts may consider a variety of factors. The trial court here did just that,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the panel, which unanimously affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Justices noted that the children and their mother shared a “strong, loving bond,” that DCS would face challenges finding adoptive homes for the children, and that K.H. had made progress complying with her parent-participation plan by securing a full-time job, remaining sober and regularly engaging in counseling and AA meetings.

“To be sure, Mother has not consistently complied with, nor has she completed, all twenty-three requirements in her parent-participation plan — including the requirement that she secure suitable housing for herself and her children. But as the trial court aptly observed, full compliance with the plan ‘is difficult to accomplish, especially for someone without personal transportation,’” the panel wrote.

“After all, on multiple occasions, Mother went to counseling and visitations by foot; and DCS case managers conceded that the plan requirements were cumbersome, often requiring Mother to be in three or four different places in a given week, while also keeping a job, attending visitations, and looking for housing. But despite any challenges Mother has faced, the evidence shows that she has complied or made progress with most of the plan’s requirements,” it continued.

“In sum, the trial court recognized Mother’s struggles with finding suitable housing, but it properly looked to other factors — supported by the evidence — in concluding that DCS failed to meet its burden to show that terminating Mother’s parental rights would be in her children’s best interests,” Rush concluded. “Given the evidence above that supports the trial court’s decision, that decision is not contrary to law.”