parents challenge in Indiana

2019Id. [8] Parents claim that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (B) that one (1) of the following is true: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 6 of 13 (i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child[ren]’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied. (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child[ren]. (iii) The child[ren h

2019Id. [8] Parents claim that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (B) that one (1) of the following is true: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 6 of 13 (i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child[ren]’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied. (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child[ren]. (iii) The child[ren h

2019K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013).

2015Rather, it is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened by the respondent parent’s custody.” In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted). [15] Here, Parents challenge only the trial court’s determination that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to M.C.’s removal will not be remedied.

2011Maybaum, 723 N.E.2d at 954 ("Presumably, these provisions were enacted to give the child's parent, guardian, or custodian notice of the allegations and the opportunity to contradict the OFC's case.").

2011Mayb-aum, 723 N.E.2d at 954 (“Presumably, these provisions were enacted to give the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian notice of the allegations and the opportunity to contradict the OFC’s case.”).

2019See In re L.S. 717 N.E.2d at 209 (because Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 (b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, court needs to find only one requirement to terminate parental rights). 2 [13] Additionally, Parents’ proffered arguments including alternate reasons they did not complete services; Father’s testimony that he had a job “he was about to 2 Nor do Parents challenge any of the trial court’s other statutorily-required conclusions.

2018In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208 . [17] Parents challenge the court’s conclusions the conditions under which Children were removed would not be remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a risk to Children, and termination was in the best interests of Children.

2024CHINS proceedings are civil actions; thus, “the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is a CHINS as defined by the juvenile code.” In re N.E., 919 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind. 2010); see Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 .

2024D.B.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 20 N.E.3d 174, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

2019Office of Family & Children, 881 N.E.2d 706, 715 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming termination despite mother’s recent efforts in combating her marijuana addiction, because she had thirteen months to complete drug treatment and, at the time of the final hearing, “still had to complete seven weeks with the IOP aftercare program, as well as complete home-based counseling, which could not even begin unless or until Mother successfully completed the IOP”), trans. denied. [43] While Parents challenge the trial court’s best-interests determination, they do not provide a separate analysis beyond assert

2019See, e.g., Long v. Starke Co. Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“The fact that there was not a specific family in place to adopt the children does not make the plan unsatisfactory.”), trans. denied. [17] Parents’ challenge to the trial court’s finding that the Children were doing well in their kinship placement is that FCM Becker testified that the younger child, D.R., has cried after parenting time with Mother was over, FCM Becker’s testimony showed that visits with Mother were vital to S.R.’s well-being, and that there was no evidence regarding how Chil

2017In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 2 The trial court found the conditions under which Child was removed would not be remedied and the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child.

2017Gipson v. Gipson, 644 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind. 1994). [10] Parents’ motion for relief from judgment asserted that they had suffered “tremendous hardship, prejudice and injustice” stemming from the administrative substantiation of neglect even though their CHINS admissions did not employ the words “neglect” or “refuse.” (App. Vol. II, pg. 32.) At the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 87A05-1609-JC-2280 | July 7, 2017 Page 6 of 8 hearing on the motion for relief, Parents did not present testimony or other evidence; rather, argument of counsel was heard.

2016Where, however, the court has entered findings that are not challenged, those findings “must be accepted as correct.” Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992). [25] Parents challenge the trial court’s conclusion there is “a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in their removal or their continued removal will never be remedied.” 4 (App. at 49.) Parents assert they “substantially remedied the issues that caused the removal,” (Amended Appellants’ Br. at 22), because “the ‘dirty home’ conditions have been remedied, the Children’s educational needs were met, and all counseling

2016Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind. 2004). [31] Parents claim counsel was ineffective because she “appeared to be sleeping” during trial, (Amended Appellant’s Br. at 38), she “failed generally to communicate about their case and upcoming hearings,” (id. at 39), failed to get visitation reinstated, failed to obtain necessary documents, failed to subpoena witnesses, “failed to ask many of the questions they wanted asked during trial, failed to enter things into evidence, and failed to properly prepare them and herself for trial.” (Id. at 40.) Parents also allege counsel was

2016See Parmeter, 878 N.E.2d at 450 (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses).

2016To be “satisfactory” for the purposes of the termination statute, a plan “need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated.” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lang v. Starke Cnty.

2015See In re E.E., 736 N.E.2d at 796 .

2015See In re L.V.N., 799 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

2015See id.

2004See Bailey v. Martz, 488 N.E.2d 716, 723 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (in discussing the predecessor statutes to the current versions of both wrongful death statutes, held that the Child Wrongful Death Statute provided the only cause of action for wrongful death of a child), trans. denied, su-perceded on other grounds by statute.

2004See Bailey v. Martz, 488 N.E.2d 716, 723 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (in discussing the predecessor statutes to the current versions of both wrongful death statutes, held that the Child Wrongful Death Statute provided the only cause of action for wrongful death of a child), trans. denied, su-perceded on other grounds by statute.

2004State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 87 , 118 N.E. 529, 530 (1918). [3] The obsolete definition includes, "The action of looking after or taking care of a person or thing; the condition of being taken care of; protection, defence, custody, care....

2004State v. O'Dell, 187 Ind. 84, 87 , 118 N.E. 529, 530 (1918). [3] The obsolete definition includes, "The action of looking after or taking care of a person or thing; the condition of being taken care of; protection, defence, custody, care....