Title: Termination: 
S T
v.
Indiana Department of Child Services

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-JT-77 
In re the Termination of the Parent-Child 
Relationship of I.L., O.L., V.N., and M.P.N. (Minor 
Children) and S.T. (Mother); 
S.T. (Mother), 
Respondent-Appellant, 
–v–
Indiana Department of Child Services, 
Petitioner-Appellee. 
Decided: March 2, 2022 
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court 
Nos. 53C07-1911-JT-651, 53C07-1911-JT-652, 
53C07-1911-JT-653, 53C07-1911-JT-654  
The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, 
No. 21A-JT-418 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Mar 02 2022, 1:58 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JT-77 | March 2, 2022 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam. 
In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, 
this Court granted emergency relief to Indiana trial courts under Indiana 
Administrative Rule 17. The relief provided to the Monroe County Courts 
included authorization for courts in civil cases to “allow parties to appear 
remotely via CourtCall or conference call to the extent a party’s 
constitutional rights would not be violated[.]” See March 18, 2020 order in 
case no. 20S-CB-138. 
Here, the Monroe Circuit Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to 
her four children after holding a remote video hearing in January 2021. 
Mother appealed, claiming that holding the hearing over a remote 
videoconferencing platform violated her constitutional due process rights 
and that the evidence was insufficient to support termination. The Court 
of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects. In re I.L., 177 N.E.3d 864, 
867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).  
As to Mother’s due process argument, the Court of Appeals weighed 
the serious safety concerns regarding in-person hearings during the 
COVID-19 pandemic; the important State interest in prompt adjudication 
of child welfare matters; and the risk of error created by the remote nature 
of the hearing. It found that any errors in the trial proceedings did not 
deprive Mother of an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and 
manner, noting that each of the errors Mother identified on appeal was 
promptly addressed by the trial judge. Id. at 870–72. The Court of Appeals 
also rejected Mother’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Mother 
sought transfer on the due process issue but did not renew her argument 
on sufficiency. 
Being duly advised and having concluded the Court of Appeals 
correctly decided the due process issue, we grant transfer and expressly 
adopt and incorporate by reference Part I of the Court of Appeals’ opinion 
as Supreme Court precedent. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). In all other 
respects, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion. App. R. 
58(A)(2). 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-JT-77 | March 2, 2022 
Page 3 of 3 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T  
Phyllis J. Emerick 
Rachel M. Rogers 
Bloomington, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Theodore E. Rokita 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Robert J. Henke 
Natalie F. Weiss 
Deputy Attorneys General 
Indianapolis, Indiana