Background
B.E. entered Department of Child Services custody after two violent incidents involving his parents. In one, the father threw back a phone the mother had thrown at him, striking the child’s face and causing a cut and bruising. Three days later, the father pulled the child through a car window and held him while shoving the mother to the ground. The resulting child-in-need-of-services case required the father to complete a substance-use assessment and recommendations, random drug screens, home-based casework, domestic-violence services, a parenting assessment, and permitted parenting time.
The father completed some initial assessments but did not finish the recommended programs. He missed 185 calls for random screening and 78 tests, and completed only six tests, two of which were positive for buprenorphine or cocaine. He did not complete home-based casework or a parenting assessment. After a no-contact order was modified to permit contact consistent with the CHINS case, he visited twice, missed later visits, and stopped participating. He also failed to demonstrate stable housing and employment.
In June 2025, the father pleaded guilty to neglect and domestic-battery charges. After he failed to report to community corrections, he was arrested in August and ordered to serve the balance of his sentences in the Department of Correction. DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights in September. The trial court found that the father had not complied with services or remedied the conditions leading to removal and terminated both parents’ rights. Only the father appealed, arguing that DCS had not made reasonable reunification efforts.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge DeBoer began with a settled distinction in Indiana law: DCS generally must make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families during a CHINS proceeding, but reasonable efforts are not an element DCS must prove under the parental-rights termination statute. A claimed failure to provide services therefore does not directly establish that a termination judgment is contrary to law.
The record also defeated the father’s factual argument. Although he remained incarcerated from August 2025 through the termination proceedings, he had been incarcerated for only two days between the October 2024 CHINS adjudication and his August arrest. That left nearly ten months outside custody in which DCS offered the agreed services. He did not fully complete any of them. Indiana law expects parents to rehabilitate during the CHINS process, before the termination petition is filed; later incarceration did not erase the lengthy period of nonparticipation.
The court rejected the father’s more specific service complaints as well. After the no-contact order was modified in May, he had adequate time to complete a parenting assessment but attended only two visits, missed others, and ceased participation before his arrest. The evidence also showed that he knew group psychotherapy had been recommended after his substance-use assessment and helped establish services with a provider, but did not follow through. His appellate arguments asked the panel to reweigh evidence, which the deferential termination standard does not permit.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable reunification efforts are generally required during an Indiana CHINS case, but they are not a statutory element DCS must prove to terminate parental rights.
- A service-related objection does not directly invalidate termination when the record otherwise supports the statutory findings.
- Courts assess the full opportunity to participate before incarceration, not only whether services were available after a parent entered custody.
- Parents and counsel should raise service barriers promptly in the CHINS court and document requests, referrals, availability, participation, and any agency response.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the urgency of addressing service failures while a CHINS case is ongoing. Indiana practitioners representing parents should seek timely review orders, modifications, or enforcement if referrals are missing or a no-contact order interferes with assessments and visitation. Waiting until a termination appeal makes the argument procedurally and substantively harder, especially because appellate courts do not reweigh testimony.
For DCS and guardians ad litem, the opinion underscores the practical value of a clear, detailed timeline. The decisive record showed what was offered, what the father began, what he missed, when legal restrictions changed, and how much non-incarcerated time remained. That complete chronology allowed the court to separate genuine service unavailability from a parent’s failure to complete accessible services.