Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A mother and father who continually failed to provide adequate care for their children could not convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana to restore their parental rights.
A.B. is the biological mother of B.B., born in 2016, and P.B., born in 2020. L.L. is the biological father of P.B.
In August 2020, the Department of Child Services in Fulton County received a report of a young child wandering outside alone. Family case manager Cynthia Rainey investigated and found 3-year-old B.B. alone and naked two blocks from his home.
Rainey returned B.B. to the home, and a safety plan was implemented in which A.B. agreed to drug tests. Both tests administered that month were positive for methamphetamine.
On Sept. 1, Rainey returned to the home, but no one answered the door. Through the window, she could see P.B. strapped to a car seat, apparently alone. With help from law enforcement, Rainey entered the home and found P.B. with a urine-soaked diaper while B.B. was dirty, smelled and had dried fecal matter on him.
The children were subsequently removed from A.B.’s care. Father L.L. was incarcerated at that time for violating his parole from a 2012 burglary conviction, and B.B.’s biological father could not be located. Thus, the children were placed with their maternal aunt, where they have since remained.
In February 2021, A.B. admitted both children were children in need of services and L.L. admitted as to P.B. The Fulton Circuit Court found P.B. to be CHINS that day, and B.B. found to be a CHINS in March.
In the year and a half following her children’s removal, A.B. failed to comply with the case plan while L.L. only partially complied after his release from jail. Thus, DCS petitioned to terminate their parental rights as to P.B. for both parents and as to B.B. for the mother only.
L.L. was arrested again in January but was released.
After a hearing, orders were given terminating their parental rights to both children. The parental rights of B.B.’s biological father were also terminated, but he is not a party to the instant appeal.
A.B. and L.L then separately appealed, with the mother arguing the “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof in termination cases is unconstitutional under state law. However, the COA cited multiple federal and state cases in its rejection of that argument, heavily leaning on the U.S. Supreme Court’s findings in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
“Mother’s argument would have us hold that a higher burden is required in termination cases not based on a parent’s rights over their child but based on the reputational harm of termination,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “We do not believe there is support for such a holding.”
L.L’s appeal argued that the trial court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of his pending criminal case and that the evidence presented at the termination hearing didn’t prove the statutory requirements for termination.
Again, the COA denied all contentions, finding that the issues leading to termination for the father predominately involved his criminal behavior and drug abuse, not his pending case for domestic violence, and that removal was in the child’s best interests.
The case is In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of P.B. and B.B. (Minor Children) and A.B. (Mother) and L.L. (Father), A.B. (Mother) and L.L. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 22A-JT-1397.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.