Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE :

ERIN L. BERGER ROBERT J. HENKE Evansville, Indiana D epartment of C hild S ervices Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana

MARY JANE HUMPHREY DCS, Vanderburgh County Office Evan sville , Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY ) TERMINATION OF THE PARENT

- CHILD ) RELATIONSHIP OF P.M., A.T., & A.P.
, ) MINOR CHILD REN
, AND THIER ) MOTHER, S.T., ) ) S.T.
, ) ) Appellant

- R espondent, ) )

vs. ) No. 82A01

- 1212

- JT

- 548 ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD ) SERVICES, ) ) Appellee

- Petitioner. )

APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Brett J. Neimeier , Judge Cause No s

. 82D01

- 1110

- JT

- 135, 82D01

- 1110

- JT

- 136, 82D01

- 1110

- JT

- 137

May 23, 2013

### 2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

- NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD , Judge


### Appellant

- Respondent S.T. (“ Mother ”) appeal s the juvenile court ’ s order terminating

her parental rights to P.M., A.T., and A.P. As the Department of Child Services (“DCS”)
concedes, it failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Indiana Code section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4( b )(2)(A). Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the juvenile court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 1, 2011, P.M., A.T., and A.P. (“the Children”) were removed from Mother
after she tested positive for several drugs. On March 16, 2011, the juvenile court adjudicated

the Children to be CHINS. On October 26, 2011, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s
parental rights to the Children. On October 10, 2012, the juvenile court issued an order
terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In order to involuntarily terminate a par ent ’ s parental rights, DCS must establish
, inter

alia
, by clear and convincing evidence that:
(A) one (1) of the following exists: (i) the child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree; (ii) a court has entered a finding under IC 31

- 34

- 21

- 5.6 that reasonable efforts for family preservation or reunification are not required, including a description of the court ’ s finding, the date of the finding, and the manner in which the finding was made; or (iii) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the

s upervision of a county office of family and children or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty

two (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed fr om the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of

### 3 services or a delinquent child ;
Ind. Code § 31

- 3 5

- 2

- 4(b) (2) (A)

. DCS concedes that it failed to satisfy the requirements of any of the three above
subsections and therefore acknowledges that it is not entitled to a judgment terminati ng
Mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court entered its dispositional decree on May 24,
2011. Before six months had passed, DCS filed its termination petitions on October 26,

2011, thereby failing to satisfy the requirements of subsection 35

- 35

- 2

- 4(b )(2)(A)(i)

. Moreover, because the Children were removed from Mother on March 1, 2011, DCS
concedes that the requirements of subsection (iii) were not fulfilled at the time it filed its
termination petitions. 1 

### Because DCS failed to satisfy the jurisdictio nal requirements of

Indiana Code section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4(b)(2)(A), we reverse the juvenile court’s termination of
Mother’s parental rights to the Children.
The judgment of the juvenile court is reversed

. RILEY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

1 Indiana Code section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4(b)(2)(A)(ii) is not im plicated in this case.