Court Opinion

ID: 9542666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:10.603423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:37.420758
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Judge,
dissenting.
While I share the majority's concern for the welfare of the Robinson children, I cannot agree that the evidence is sufficient to justify the permanent severance of their relationship with their father. I am unable to join in the majority opinion, because I believe that it fails to sufficiently differentiate proceedings when a child is in need of services (CHINS) Ind.Code § 31-6-4-10 et seq., a temporary emergency protective measure, from procedures which result in the termination of parental rights, Ind. Code § 31-6-5-4 et seq.
The prerequisite statutory elements in such a proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship are:
(1) the child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree;
(2) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal will not be remedied;
(8) termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(4) the county department has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.
{emphasis supplied) Ind.Code § 31-6-5-4 (West Supp.1988). The unique and monumental nature of this optional recourse is appropriately recognized by the commentary accompanying this statute:
Involuntary termination of parental rights is the most severe action a juvenile court can take; section 5 of this chapter [I.C. 81-6-5-5] underscores that termination severs all rights of a parent to his child. Termination is therefore designated to be a last resort, available only when all other reasonable efforts have failed. This policy is a recognition of the constitutional rights of parents to the custody of their children, and the state's authority to interfere with that right only in certain limited cireumstance-es.
*1389Ind.Code § 31-6-5-4, unofficial commentary at 216-17 (West 1980).
The termination of the parent-child relationship should therefore serupulously require sufficient proof for each of the elements before imposition of this ultimate sanction to the parental relationship, including proof that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal will not be remedied. Sufficient evidence should be required to specifically identify the conditions which resulted in the original CHINS removal and to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that such conditions will not be remedied.
Concerns regarding the present best interests of the child or judicial expediency are wholly unacceptable to obviate the necessity of such proof and to justify irrevocable termination of the parent-child relationship. The denial of a petition to terminate parental rights does not create any risk or danger to the children involved. They remain under the protection of the prior CHINS order.
Because of these concerns, I respectfully dissent from the majority.
DeBRULER, J., concurs.