Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-34-12-2 (2026)

Burden of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 2. Except as provided in IC 31-35-2-4.5(d), a finding in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-7-13(a) part.]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17. Amended by P.L.35-1998, SEC.8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.G., L.C., & M.C. (Minor Child.), & A.C. & J.G. (Their Parents) A.C. (Mother) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 51 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.G., L.C., & M.C. (Minor Child.), & A.C. & J.G. (Their Parents) A.C. (Mother) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs. (mem. dec.), 51 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2. In the appellate review of a termination of parental relationship, the following standard applies: We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable…”

Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.S. (Minor Child) & L.M. (Mother) & Sa.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 120 N.E.3d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “2d at 209 , but must do so by clear and convincing evidence, Ind. Code § 31-34-12-2 ; In re G.Y. , 904 N.”

In Re Paternity of Pb, 932 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “CODE § 31-34-12-2.[ [4] ] A parent's right to raise and be a part of a child's young life is a fundamental Constitutional right deserving safeguard from only but the strongest of proof terminating or suspending that right.”

A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2 (1998). Father does not specify which statutory element of proof he believes MCOFC failed to satisfy.”

Carrera v. Allen Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 758 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2 (1998). Mother contends that OFC failed to meet its burden and presented insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights.”

In Re Wb, 772 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 31-34-12-2. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence A.”

Bartrum v. Grant Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 772 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “IC. § 31-34-12-2. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence A.”

D.B. v. M.B., 932 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 31-34-12-2 states, "Except as provided in IC 31-35-2-4.”

Jones v. Gibson Cnty. Div. of Fam. & Child., 728 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2. Removal from Parent Jones does not dispute that the State satisfied Ind.”

In Re Kf, 797 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Compare I.C. § 31-34-12-2 (Burns Code Ed. Supp.2003) (findings in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence) with I.”

Af v. McOfc, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-34-12-2 (1998). Father does not specify which statutory element of proof he believes MCOFC failed to satisfy.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.