A.K.G. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs.

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in a parental-rights termination case, with Chief Justice Rush dissenting and Justice David concurring. The dissent argued that the termination order was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence because the trial court relied on stale evidence and the Indiana Department of Child Services lacked a viable permanency plan for the child.

Holdings

1. In Chief Justice Rush's dissent, stale evidence and the Department's lack of a viable permanency plan did not clearly and convincingly establish that termination was in the child's best interests; the dissent would have granted transfer and reversed the termination order.
2. The dissent states that appellate review requires determining whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment; deference to the trial court does not permit rubber-stamping a termination order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether stale evidence and the absence of a viable permanency plan could clearly and convincingly support a determination that terminating the mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred by relying primarily on outdated evidence concerning the mother's past circumstances rather than current evidence.
3. Whether the Department's general adoption plan, without a realistic likelihood of adoption, supported termination as being in the child's best interests.

Disposition

writ_denied