Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2 (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. 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.20.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 437 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M. & El.M., E.M. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014).
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M. & El.M., E.M. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636 (Ind. 2014). · cites it 4× “Accord- ingly, when seeking to terminate parental rights, DCS must prove its case by “clear and convincing evidence,” Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2 (2008)—a “heightened burden of proof” reflecting termination’s “serious social consequences.”
Castro v. State Off. of Fam. & Child., 842 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 31-37-14-2. Castro contends that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied in eriminal proceedings should be used because of the potentially serious consequences of a termination proceeding.”
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.A. J.H. v. IDCS, 934 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “" Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2 . To construe harmoniously the requirements of the statute and Rule 52(A), we hold that to determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous, we review the trial court's judgment to determine whether the evidence clearly and…”
C.A. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “2009); Ind.Code § 31-37-14-2. As a standard of proof, clear and convincing evidence requires the existence of a fact to ‘“be highly probable.”
T.Q. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 996 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2009) (quoting Ind.Code § 31-37-14-2 (2008)), reh’g denied.”
K.M. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2009) (quoting Ind.Code § 31-37-14-2), reh’g denied. On appeal, Mother and Father challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment as to subsection (B)(i) of the termination statute detailed above.”
In Re Adoption of MAS, 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “A conclusion that the burden of proof is "clear and convincing evidence" is further supported by Ind.Code § 31-37-14-2 (1998), which concerns the burden of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights and provides that "[a] finding in a proceeding to terminate parental…”
T.B. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Moreover, under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-8(a), if the court does not find that the allegations in a petition are true, then the court shall dismiss the petition. Here, the trial court made numerous thoughtful findings regarding Mother’s ongoing inability and/or unwillingness…”
T.D. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “2009) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-14-2). [7] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Z.B., D.B., L.B., Me.B., Ma.B. (Minor Child.) & A.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 108 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 31-37-14-2. If the court finds that the allegations are true, "the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.”
In Re Js, 906 N.E.2d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1992); see also Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2 . In the present case, Father and Mother challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's determinations regarding Indiana Code sections 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) and (C).”
In Re Es, 762 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-37-14-2; In re L.S., 717 N.”
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.