Opinion ID: 2829038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: A., 632 N.E.2d 752, 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)).

Text: We first acknowledge that DCS recommended termination solely on the grounds that K.E. deserves permanency. The DCS case manager had very little opportunity to work with Father because services provided by DCS were not available to him during his incarceration. Thus, the DCS recommendation does not appear to be a reflection of Father’s improvements, efforts to improve, or the relationship he has been able to develop with K.E. Rather, the DCS case manager testified, “I just don’t feel comfortable putting off a child’s permanency on the notion of what if somebody does what they’re supposed to do when they get out of prison.” (Tr. at 118.) When asked whether Father’s incarceration settles the question of whether termination should occur, despite Father not having had the opportunity to complete services, the DCS case manager responded, “Yes.” (Tr. at 118-19.) Although permanency is usually a factor that is assessed when evaluating whether termination is in the best interests of the child, we will consider it here, since permanency for K.E. was DCS’ and the CASA’s primary concern. Considering the impact of delaying termination on K.E.’s well-being, it is significant that H.D., the CASA, and the DCS case manager all acknowledged that it is unlikely that K.E. would be harmed by delaying termination. The following exchange exemplifies K.E.’s stability. 13 Question: “would there be any disadvantage to [K.E.], any harm that could possibly come to him, if Father’s rights were not terminated as of this date or in a month, and let’s say for at least the next maybe six months he was given services during that period of time to see whether or not he could be a fit and proper parent?” H.D.: “I don’t think it’ll affect [K.E.], no.” Question: “He feels safe and secure and loved where he’s at right now, is that right?” H.D.: “I believe so.” Question: “Would that in any way be affected by putting Father’s termination off and giving him an opportunity to do services?” H.D.: “I don’t think so.” (Tr. at 122-123.) Thus, if Father fails to comply with services and/or relapses into a life of crime or drug use, K.E. will remain in the loving environment of H.D.’s home. It is not the case that K.E. is being bounced around to various foster homes and will be denied stability if termination does not occur now. H.D. also expressed that she is willing to adopt K.E. at any time, and her willingness will not change if termination is delayed. Again, there is seemingly no risk K.E. will be denied permanency if termination is delayed. Moreover, parental rights are not to be terminated merely because there might be a “better home” available for the child. In Re K.S., 750 N.E.2d at 837. Even though Father himself admits that H.D. is currently providing a good and stable home for K.E., Father may also be able to provide a suitable home for K.E. in the future. H.D.’s own testimony even indicates her hope that Father would be capable of caring for K.E. in the future. On cross-examination the following colloquy took place: DCS: “You testified that [K.E.’s] okay because he’s with you.” H.D.: “I feel that way.” DCS: “I think most people testified they would agree.” 14 H.D.: “Obviously I want [K.E.] with his parents, but I mean, right now, yeah.” (Tr. at 124.) As for the other factors influencing K.E.’s well-being, in Bester, this Court reversed a trial court’s order terminating a Father’s parental rights because there was not clear and convincing evidence to support that Father posed a threat to the child’s well-being. 839 N.E.2d at 153. The Court considered a variety of factors that indicated that Father did not pose a threat to the child, which included: 1) Father’s full compliance with the reunification plan, such as attending therapy, parenting classes, and drug testing; 2) the loving, caring, and happy interactions between Father and child during visitations; 3) that there was “no causal connection between Father’s living arrangements and any adverse impact those arrangements may have on the Child,” or that the homes of Father’s relatives were unsuitable; and 4) Father’s current improvements demonstrated a desire to provide a healthy and drug free environment, and a past criminal history was not enough to demonstrate that Father was a threat to the child. Id. at 149-53. Here, regardless of whether Father’s rights are terminated, the evidence is undisputed that Father will continue to be a part of K.E.’s life, as long as he remains sober and otherwise lawabiding.7 Similar to Bester, Father has pursued every avenue possible to complete programs to better prepare himself for parenthood and a drug-free lifestyle after being released. Father’s interactions with K.E. are healthy and the two have bonded. Father has also bonded with J.A.E. Nothing in the record indicates that Father’s living with his father (K.E.’s paternal grandfather) would pose a threat to K.E. Thus, as in Bester, this Court is not persuaded that Father’s past 7 When H.D. was asked, “even if [Father’s] rights end up being terminated he’s going to be playing some role in the children’s lives, it just depends upon to what extent. And you will decide that based upon how safe you feel it is,” H.D. responded, “Yeah.” (Tr. at 123.) 15 criminal history and drug abuse provided clear and convincing evidence that Father now poses a threat to K.E.’s well-being. Because neither of the factors under Indiana Code § 31-35-2- 4(b)(2)(B) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, we need not address whether termination was in K.E.’s best interest. As a final note, we acknowledge that Father has had his parental rights terminated to his prior born child, J.A.E. We are compelled to reach a different result as to Father’s parental rights to K.E., given the changed circumstances since the termination hearing for J.A.E. When termination of J.A.E. was being considered, Father had not had any kind of substance abuse counseling, had not yet graduated from the Plus Program, nor had he successfully completed other programs that he had at K.E.’s termination hearing. See In Re J.E., No. 82A01-1401-JT-20, Slip Op. at . Furthermore, the DCS case manager testified at J.A.E.’s termination hearing that “H.D. was in favor of a termination of Father’s parental rights rather than a mere guardianship because H.D. was concerned that Father could still gain custody of the children.” Id. Since Father’s termination of parental rights to J.A.E., Father has begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous classes. H.D.’s testimony in K.E.’s termination hearing also indicated her hope that Father would in fact be able to be K.E.’s caregiver, and she did not insist upon immediate adoption. This alone reflects a significant change from the position she expressed in the termination hearing for J.A.E. Finally, regardless of termination, Father has continued to develop a bond with J.A.E through visitation and nightly phone calls, along with K.E. Because of the change in circumstances since the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights to J.A.E., we are not persuaded that the same outcome is warranted here.