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 Department of Child Services

Central Administration

Indianapolis, Indiana

MARY JANE HUMPHREY

DCS, Vanderburgh County Office

Evansville, 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 CHILDREN, AND THIER )

MOTHER, S.T., )

)

S.T., )

)

Appellant-Respondent, )

)

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 Nos. 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MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION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”) appealsthe 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 parent’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 

supervision of a county office of family and children or probation 

department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twentytwo (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from 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 § 31-35-2-4(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 terminating 

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 jurisdictional 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 implicated in this case.