## Facts

- R.S. (Father) and L.H. (Mother) were the parents of ten-year-old R.S. II (Child).
- Father was incarcerated from 2009 to 2013.
- During incarceration, Father stayed in contact with Child by writing letters and completed parenting and self-improvement courses.
- After release, Father completed a commercial driver’s license course and finished probation requirements, which included substance-abuse treatment and a 52-week domestic-violence counseling program.
- In 2014, the Marion County Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a CHINS petition alleging Child was a child in need of services based on Mother’s drug use and Father’s alleged lack of involvement.
- Child was placed with his maternal grandmother (Grandmother) and was later adjudicated a CHINS as to both parents.
- The juvenile court ordered Father to participate in services during the CHINS case.
- Father did not successfully complete the ordered services and failed to appear for a number of court hearings.
- Despite service and hearing problems, Father visited with Child multiple times per week during the CHINS proceeding.
- In 2015, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. Mother consented to adoption.
- At the termination fact-finding hearing, the case manager, therapist, and guardian ad litem acknowledged Child’s close bond with Father but agreed Grandmother should adopt Child; the guardian ad litem also recommended continued visitation with Father.
- The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights, reasoning that adoption was in Child’s best interests because continuation of the parent-child relationship would deprive Child of permanency.
- Father appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in Child’s best interests under Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C).
2. Whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that it had a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment under Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(D), where the plan was adoption by Grandmother.
3. Whether the trial court may rely primarily on a generalized need for permanency to support termination when the child is already in a stable relative placement and has a strong bond with the parent.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s termination order.
- The Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision.
- The Court held DCS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Child’s best interests on this record, given the acknowledged bond and the evidence favoring ongoing contact.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of a child is a fundamental liberty interest; termination is a last-resort remedy.
- DCS must prove the statutory elements for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).
- The “best interests” element requires more than showing that adoption would provide permanency; the court must evaluate the effect of permanently severing the parent-child relationship in light of the evidence at the time of the termination hearing.
- A child’s strong, positive bond with a parent is relevant to best-interests analysis; when the record shows the child benefits from the relationship, the State must present evidence showing why severance is nevertheless necessary.
- A stable placement with a relative can protect a child while reunification efforts continue, and the existence of such a placement may weigh against termination when the main justification offered is permanency.
- A “satisfactory plan” for care and treatment is required, and adoption is commonly offered as such a plan; however, satisfaction of the plan element does not replace the need for clear and convincing proof that termination itself is in the child’s best interests.
- Appellate review does not reweigh evidence, but it must ensure that the trial court’s conclusions meet the clear-and-convincing standard required in termination cases.

## Conclusion

In *In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.S.*, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the termination of Father’s parental rights because the record—while showing missed services and hearings—also showed a significant bond and frequent visitation, and DCS did not clearly prove that permanently cutting off the relationship was in Child’s best interests simply to achieve adoption-based permanency while Child was already safe and stable with Grandmother.


In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625 (2016)