Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 1 of 11

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT J.A.

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT M.A.

Jennifer A. Joas

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary 

Termination of the Parent-Child 

Relationship of: F.A., L.A., 

D.A., P.A., & Z.A. (Minor 

Children) 

J.A. (Mother) and M.A. 

(Father),

Appellants,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee.

May 7, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-2570

Appeal from the Ripley Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Ryan King, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

69C01-1905-JT-16

69C01-1905-JT-17

69C01-1905-JT-18

69C01-1905-JT-19

69C01-1905-JT-20

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 2 of 11

[1] J.A. (“Mother”) and M.A. (“Father,” and together with Mother, “Parents”) 

appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their children 

F.A., L.A., D.A., P.A., and Z.A. (the “Children”). We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] F.A. was born in 2008, L.A. was born in 2009, D.A. was born in 2012, P.A. 

was born in 2013, and Z.A. was born in 2014. On September 8, 2016, the 

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that De.A.,

1 F.A., and 

L.A. had excessive absences from school, and a home visit revealed sanitary

concerns in the home, and DCS later filed petitions alleging the Children were 

children in need of services (“CHINS”). On September 29, 2016, the court 

entered an order finding the Children were CHINS based on Parents’ 

admissions regarding the condition of the home and De.A., F.A., and L.A. 

missing seventy-five percent of the school days in session that year. The court

issued a dispositional order requiring Parents to, among other things,

participate in any recommended programs, permit family case managers and 

service providers to make announced and unannounced visits to the home, 

ensure the Children attend school, and maintain suitable and safe housing with 

adequate bedding and supplies of food. D.A., P.A., and Z.A. were removed 

from the home on or about December 1, 2016, and approved to be placed back 

1 Parents are also the parents of De.A., who was born in November 2006, and A.A., who was born in 2003. 

De.A. and A.A. were placed with their maternal grandmother and not subject to the termination order from 

which this appeal arises. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 3 of 11

in the home on December 29, 2016, after DCS indicated the home was free of 

safety concerns. An order file-stamped March 1, 2017, approved the removal of 

the Children from the home and stated the home was unsafe and unsuitable for 

children. A progress report in July 2017 stated Parents had attended all 

scheduled visitations and required individual counseling. The report also noted 

DCS was seeking assistance from a clinical resource consultant to seek partial 

hospitalization for Mother to stabilize and establish self-care. The court entered 

an order in January 2018 stating Parents complied with the Children’s case 

plan, attended counseling, and maintained a safe home environment; Father 

was working on positive coping skills; and there were still some issues with 

Valle Vista and the hospitalization program but DCS was working with 

Mother. 

[3] The Children were returned to Parents in stages in 2018. In particular, in 

February 2018 the court granted DCS’s motion for approval of a trial home 

visit for F.A. and L.A. which stated a family case manager observed the home 

to be free of safety concerns, Parents had made significant strides in 

maintaining a safe home environment for children, they would continue to 

participate in counseling, and Mother would continue to participate in homebased services. An order in April 2018 stated P.A. had been approved for a trial 

home visit and D.A. and Z.A. had been approved for overnight stays on the 

weekends. An order in September 2018 stated Parents had complied with the 

Children’s case plan, attended required counseling, visited the Children, 

cooperated with DCS, and enhanced their ability to fulfill their parental 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 4 of 11

obligations. The order also stated that Father attended therapy every two to 

three weeks, and there were times when the home needed items picked up, 

dishes washed, and trash taken out, and Mother then complied with the request 

to remedy the situation. In October 2018, the court approved a trial home visit

for Z.A. D.A. began a trial home visit in November 2018. According to the 

court, all of the Children had been returned to the home by November 7, 2018. 

[4] A progress report dated November 28, 2018, stated the Children appeared to be 

happy and adjusted to living at home, the permanency plan was reunification, 

the projected date for the Children’s permanency was March 15, 2019, and

DCS was requesting case closure for F.A., L.A., and P.A. On January 9, 2019, 

DCS filed a notice of addendum stating that it was requesting case closure for 

all of the Children. 

[5] On January 24, 2019, Mother had an altercation with her twelve-year-old

daughter De.A. Mother yelled, struck De.A. with a towel, told her to “shut 

up,” used derogatory language, took De.A.’s school device from her, and said 

“I’ve f---ing had it,” “I’m going to knock you out,” “I will pop you if I hear it 

again,” and “no electronics, period.” Transcript Volume II at 124, 127, 129-

132. De.A. received a couple of cuts on her fingers during the struggle over a 

school device. The following day, the court terminated the home placement. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 5 of 11

[6] According to a family case manager, DCS filed a petition to terminate parental 

rights on February 5, 2019, but the petition was dismissed.2

 The court

approved a change in the permanency plan to adoption on April 30, 2019. On 

May 1, 2019, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Parents as 

to the Children, and the court held a hearing in August 2019. Mary Smith 

testified she worked for Ireland Home Based Services, was assigned to Parents, 

and worked with Mother on parent aide services, budgeting, obtaining her 

license, organizing the home, and establishing a routine for the children. She 

indicated Mother was appropriate with the children, that she visited the house 

twice a week for four months and once a week for two months and that, when 

she closed her services near the end of August 2018, the home was clean and 

organized. Mother’s counsel argued DCS had asked for case closure, all of the 

Children were home, DCS was relying solely on the altercation between 

Mother and De.A., it provided no services to address the altercation, “[w]e 

have new conditions here with no services provided,” and Parents “did not 

have enough time to demonstrate that they couldn’t remedy any physical or 

emotional abuse issues that the department felt they had and for the reasons of 

that removal on January 25th of 2019.” Transcript Volume IV at 136. 

[7] On October 2, 2019, the court terminated Parents’ parental rights as to the 

Children. The court found Parents did not demonstrate an ability to provide 

2 When asked why the petition was dismissed, the family case manager testified “I think there was something 

with the legal side of it.” Transcript Volume III at 169. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 6 of 11

adequate care or supervision, did not show the capability to provide a home 

that is safe, clean and habitable, and were evicted from the home after the 

Children’s final removal and were living in separate apartments. It found

Father had not shown the ability to protect the Children from domestic violence 

or that he would be able to take care of five children while working a full-time 

job that does not pay enough for him to adequately support them or pay for day 

care. The court concluded there is a reasonable probability the conditions that

resulted in the Children’s removal will not be remedied and the continuation of 

the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the Children’s well-being and 

termination of parental rights is in the Children’s best interests. 

Discussion

[8] Mother argues that Parents regained custody of all the Children by November 

2018, DCS requested the court to close the CHINS case on January 9, 2019, 

and she had an altercation with her daughter on January 24, 2019, which

resulted in DCS initiating the termination proceeding and giving Parents no 

time to correct the behavior prompting the termination petition. She argues she 

was deprived of due process due to DCS’s decision to terminate her rights based 

on a dispute with her daughter without offering her services to remedy the 

issue. She argues it is inherently unfair to sever her parent-child bond with 

De.A.’s five siblings based on the isolated incident. Father also argues DCS 

filed its termination petition before offering services to address Mother’s 

altercation with De.A. and deprived him of due process. He argues the isolated 

altercation altered the trajectory of the entire case from case closure to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 7 of 11

termination of parental rights as to five of De.A.’s siblings within a matter of 

days. He contends there were no safety concerns before the incident and there 

was insufficient evidence to support parental termination. 

[9] DCS contends that, “[w]hile the incident [between Mother and De.A.] may 

have been the proverbial ‘straw that broke the camel’s back,’ the evidence 

indicates that numerous and intensive reasonable efforts were provided Parents 

to reunify, but they failed or refused to benefit from the same.” Appellee’s Brief 

at 23. It argues that, even assuming it violated its obligation to provide 

domestic violence services, “this arguably does not amount to a due process 

violation” and Parents received reunification services but regressed and failed to 

demonstrate long-term improvements. Id. at 39. 

[10] The trial court entered findings and conclusions. We determine whether the 

evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and whether the 

findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of 

Child Servs., Dearborn Cty. Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). 

[11] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Id.; 

In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Although parental rights

are of a constitutional dimension, the rights may be terminated where parents 

are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. In re D.B., 942 

N.E.2d at 871. Before parental rights may be involuntarily terminated, the 

State is required to prove, among other things, that termination is in the best 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 8 of 11

interests of the child and that there is a reasonable probability the conditions 

that resulted in the child’s removal or placement outside the home will not be 

remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the 

well-being of the child, or the child has on two separate occasions been 

adjudicated a CHINS. See id. at 871-872 (citing Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)).

[12] As a matter of statutory elements, it has been established that DCS is not 

required to provide parents with services prior to seeking termination of the 

parent-child relationship. In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d 607, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), 

trans. denied. However, parents facing termination proceedings are afforded due 

process protections. Id. We have discretion to address such due process claims 

even where the issue is not raised below. Id. (citations omitted). CHINS and

termination of parental rights proceedings “are deeply and obviously 

intertwined to the extent that an error in the former may flow into and infect 

the latter,” and procedural irregularities in a CHINS proceeding may deprive a 

parent of due process with respect to the termination of his or her parental 

rights. Id. (citing In re D.H., 119 N.E.3d 578, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), aff’d in 

relevant part on reh’g, trans. denied). DCS’s policy manual provides directions 

regarding the provision of services and states DCS “will provide family services 

to all children and families with an open case,” “will make appropriate service 

referrals,” and “will reassess the strengths and needs of the child and family 

throughout the life of the case and will adjust services, if necessary, to meet 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 9 of 11

identified needs.” Matter of D.H., 119 N.E.3d at 589 (citing Indiana Department 

of Child Services Child Welfare Policy Manual, Ch. 5, Sec. 10).3

 

[13] In addition to due process protections, we note the State’s burden of proof for 

establishing the elements of the termination statute in termination cases is one 

of “clear and convincing evidence.” In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 872; Ind. Code § 

31-37-14-2. If the State fails to prove any of the elements, then it is not entitled 

to a judgment terminating parental rights. In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 872. The 

court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the time of the 

termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions. 

In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Due to the permanent 

effect of termination, the court must evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of 

conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child

and may consider a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, 

history of neglect, lack of adequate housing and employment, and the services 

offered by DCS to the parent and the parent’s response to those services. Id.

[14] “The involuntary termination of parental rights is the most extreme sanction a 

court can impose on a parent because termination severs all rights of a parent to 

his or her children.” In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1136 (Ind. 2010) (citation 

omitted). “Therefore, termination is intended as a last resort, available only 

when all other reasonable efforts have failed.” Id. (holding “[w]e are not 

3 The Indiana Department of Child Services Child Welfare Policy Manual is now found at 

https://www.in.gov/dcs/2536.htm [https://perma.cc/BJ4M-8AYC] (last visited April 27, 2020). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 10 of 11

convinced that all other reasonable efforts have been employed in this case to 

unite this father and son” and “we see little harm in extending the CHINS 

wardship until such time as [the father] has a chance to prove himself a fit 

parent for his child”); In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d at 618 (finding DCS did not make 

reasonable efforts to preserve the parent-child relationship). 

[15] The record reveals the CHINS proceedings began in 2016 due to the home’s

condition and school attendance. Upon DCS’s recommendation, the Children 

were returned to the home in stages during 2018, and by November 7, 2018, all

the Children were placed with Parents in the home. The November 28, 2018 

report indicated the Children appeared to be happy and adjusted to living at 

home, Parents had maintained a good home environment, the permanency 

plan was reunification, and the projected date for the Children’s permanency

with Parents was March 15, 2019. On January 9, 2019, DCS requested case 

closure for all the Children. Then, on January 24, 2019, there was an 

altercation between Mother and De.A., and DCS abruptly changed course. We 

do not deny the seriousness of the altercation. Nevertheless, DCS does not 

assert that it kept the CHINS proceedings open in order to reassess the needs of 

the Children and Parents in light of the altercation and to adjust services to 

meet the identified needs. Instead, it moved immediately to terminate Parents’

parental rights as to the five Children, filing termination petitions on February 

5, 2019 and May 1, 2019. We are mindful that termination of parental rights is 

the most extreme sanction and “intended as a last resort, available only when 

all other reasonable efforts have failed.” In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1136; see also
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-2570 | May 7, 2020 Page 11 of 11

In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d at 618 (reviewing the circumstances in totality in 

concluding DCS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the father and 

child). We cannot conclude, in totality and under the circumstances, that DCS 

made all reasonable efforts to reunify Parents with the Children following the 

altercation with De.A. In light of DCS’s actions following the altercation and

its burden of proof, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for 

reinstatement of the CHINS cases and reassessment consistent with this 

opinion. See Matter of D.H., 119 N.E.3d at 591 (remanding for reinstatement of 

the CHINS cases, a reexamination of the requirements for reunification, and a 

revised dispositional order). 

[16] Reversed and remanded. 

Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.