IN RE: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.G. (Minor Child) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.G. (“Father”) appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights to R.G. (“Child”), on petition of the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”). Father presents the sole issue of: Were Father's due process rights violated by DCS’ failure to provide reunification services while he was incarcerated in the county jail? We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born to Father and A.G. (“Mother”) in January 2022.¹ On October 15, 2023, when Child was about twenty-two months old, a concerned citizen called police after finding Child alone in the middle of North 19th Street in Richmond trying to hide under a cargo van. No caregiver was in sight, and Child was without shoes or a jacket.

[3] Sergeant Brett Haskett of the Richmond Police Department responded and looked for Child's parents. He talked to a neighbor who thought Mother was in jail and Father and Child had been staying in the home at 205 North 19th Street. Sergeant Haskett went to that address and spoke with the woman who answered the door. She knew Father and Child and said they had been staying with her for a few days. She hadn't seen Father in a few hours, and believed Child was with him. The home was in deplorable condition, and the woman had no clothing or supplies for Child. Sergeant Haskett contacted DCS and drove Child to the police department. Child was dirty, his clothing was stained, and his diaper had not been changed in some time. Child smelled so strongly of urine and feces, the officer needed to roll down his windows.

[4] Sergeant Haskett confirmed Mother was incarcerated in the Wayne County Jail. He could not locate Father. The responding Family Case Manager (“FCM”) also attempted to find Father without success. Over the next two days, she visited the home on North 19th Street and another address where Father sometimes stayed but did not find him. During that time, Father did not contact the police or DCS. Child was placed in foster care.

[5] On October 16, DCS filed a verified petition alleging Child was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). The State also charged Father with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. He was arrested and detained in the Wayne County Jail on November 7.

[6] Child was adjudicated a CHINS on February 11, 2024. At the time, Father was in jail awaiting trial on the neglect charge.² After a dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered Father—when not incarcerated—to do the following: notify the FCM if he has been arrested or charged with any crimes; keep all scheduled appointments with DCS staff and service providers; maintain appropriate housing; maintain a legal and stable source of income; complete a substance use assessment and participate in all recommended services; submit to random drug screens; not use or consume illegal controlled substances; attend all parenting time sessions and comply with all rules and procedures developed by DCS or the service provider; participate in case management services with the goal of obtaining and maintaining long-term housing, income, and transportation. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 89.

[7] Father was released from incarceration at the end of March. FCM Sarah Benson submitted service referrals for Father for a substance use assessment, case management, drug screens, and supervised parenting time.

[8] Father began engaging with DCS and recommended services in April but soon stopped participating. He attended two Child and Family Team Meetings in April. He admitted to using illegal substances the day before each meeting. DCS administered drug screens at both meetings; the April 15 screen tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, and the April 24 screen was positive for the same drugs plus cocaine.

[9] Father attended four of six scheduled supervised visits with Child in April and early May. Thereafter, Father was offered weekly visits, but he failed to show up to three scheduled visits and did not confirm nine visit requests, so the provider suspended services after July. His last visit with Child was on May 9.

[10] Father completed a substance use assessment in mid-May. The intake therapist recommended Father engage in mental health and substance use treatment and referred him to a recovery program. Father attended the first program session on May 22 but failed to show up for his next scheduled appointment.

[11] On October 7, Father did not appear at a periodic case review and permanency hearing. He was not participating in any services and had not contacted DCS since May.

[12] On October 15, the State charged Father with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. He was arrested and booked into the Wayne County Jail. Father pleaded guilty to that charge. After completing his sentence in January 2025, he was transferred to the Delaware County Jail on an outstanding arrest warrant for failure to appear in a felony operating while intoxicated (“OWI”) case filed there in 2022. During the time he was incarcerated, Father made no attempt to send letters to Child or contact Child through DCS.

[13] On January 23, 2025, the State petitioned to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court held a termination hearing on April 10. At the time, Father was still in the Delaware County Jail awaiting trial in the OWI case.³ FCM Benson testified she initially met with Father in January 2024 when he was incarcerated in Wayne County on the neglect charge. She recommended certain services based on her interview with Father, but “[t]here weren't any providers able to provide services while he was incarcerated.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 97. After Father was released in late March, she again met with him and referred him to services. But after May, he failed to stay in contact with DCS. After Father was sent to the Delaware County Jail in January 2025, FCM Benson contacted the jail and learned there were no service providers meeting with inmates there. FCM Benson testified Child was doing well in placement, had bonded with his foster family, and his needs were being met. FCM Benson believed adoption was in Child's best interests. Child's court-appointed special advocate also testified Child was well adjusted in his foster home and recommended adoption as the best option for Child.

[14] On June 12, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to Child.

Father waived any due process challenge for failure to raise it in the trial court.

[15] Parents have a constitutionally protected right to establish a home and raise their children. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). But “this right is not absolute.” In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019), cert. denied. “When parents are unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities, their parental rights may be terminated.” Id. at 45–46.

[16] To terminate a parent's rights to a child, DCS must allege that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child, and that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c)(2), (3) (2024). DCS must also allege and prove the existence of one or more of twelve statutory circumstances warranting termination. See I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c)(1), (d)(1)–(12).⁴ If the trial court finds the allegations of a termination petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court “shall” terminate the parent-child relationship and “shall enter findings of fact” supporting that conclusion. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a), (c); see also I.C. § 31-37-14-2 (burden of proof).

[17] Normally, we apply a two-tiered standard of review to a termination decision: first, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second, whether the findings support the trial court's judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). But here, Father does not challenge any of the trial court's findings or its judgment. Instead, Father contends the termination decision should be reversed because DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve his relationship and reunify him with Child in the underlying CHINS case, specifically by failing to provide him with services while he was held in the county jail. He argues DCS’ failure or inability to provide services violates his due process rights.

[18] “When the State seeks to terminate the parent-child relationship, it must do so in a manner that meets the requirements of due process.” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011). To protect a parent's due process rights in the context of termination proceedings, “DCS must have made reasonable efforts to preserve and/or reunify the family unit in the CHINS case[.]” In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d 607, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. But “[w]hat constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ will vary by case, and ․ it does not necessarily always mean that services must be provided to the parents.” Id.

[19] Although Father argues the alleged lack of services in the CHINS case violated his due process rights, Father did not raise this issue in the trial court. A “party on appeal may waive a constitutional claim, including a claimed violation of due process rights, by raising it for the first time on appeal.” In re N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167, 1173 (Ind. 2016). Father's due process issue is therefore waived.

[20] Father concedes waiver applies but nevertheless claims we should exercise our discretion to address his due process argument under the fundamental error doctrine. Review under this doctrine is “extremely narrow and ‘available only when the record reveals a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, where the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied, and which violation is so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.’ ” Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1214–15 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2008)). In other words, a fundamental error finding means the trial judge erred by not acting when he or she should have, even without being spurred to action by a timely objection. Id.

[21] In support of his fundamental error argument, Father points us to T.W. There, the FCM mishandled a recently incarcerated father's paperwork to establish paternity to his child; failed to refer the father to requested supportive services; cancelled supervised visitation before it began; and did not inform the father of drug screens, thereby “setting [him] up to fail.” See T.W., 135 N.E.3d at 616, 615–18. Under those circumstances, this Court sua sponte addressed DCS’ failure to make reasonable efforts to reunify the father with his child, holding “the insufficient process employed in the CHINS case created a risk of the erroneous filing of a petition to terminate [the father's] parental rights to [his child], in violation of [his] due process rights.” Id. at 618.

[22] Here, Father was incarcerated in November 2023 on a charge of neglecting Child, to which he later pleaded guilty. Unlike the FCM in T.W., FCM Benson referred Father to services shortly after his release from the Wayne County Jail in March 2024. Father engaged in services in April and participated minimally in May before he stopped contacting DCS. His last visit with Child was on May 9. Father was not in jail for the next five months but chose not to participate in reunification services or visitation, although both remained available to him. After Father was re-incarcerated in October, there is no evidence Father tried to maintain a relationship with Child while he was in jail or even notify DCS he was there. Compare In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 647 (Ind. 2014) (noting incarcerated father's failure to communicate with his children and DCS) with Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 841 N.E.2d 615, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (noting incarcerated father sent his children letters and called them to maintain a relationship), trans. denied.

[23] Although FCM Benson testified services were not available to Father in either jail, this Court has previously held the inability of DCS to provide an incarcerated parent with reunification services in the county jail “does not amount to a denial of due process.” In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). And the record does not show DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve the parent-child relationship when Father was out of jail, as was the case in T.W. Even if Father had not waived his due process claim, DCS’ inability or failure to provide Father services in county jail does not amount to fundamental error.

Conclusion

[24] Father's due process argument is waived, and the trial court's order terminating the parent-child relationship is affirmed.

[25] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother consented to Child's adoption and is not a party to this appeal.

2.   Father later pleaded guilty to neglect as charged. The trial court accepted Father's plea but exercised its statutory discretion to enter judgment of conviction as a Class A misdemeanor. See Exhibit Vol. 1 at 75; I.C. § 35-50-2-7(b) (2019). The trial court sentenced Father to 200 days, all executed.

3.   Father testified trial was scheduled for June 9, but he had entered into a plea agreement and expected to be sentenced and released on May 1.

4.   As to Father, DCS alleged the following Subsection (d) circumstances:(2) That:(A) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child; and(B) despite the department's reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the child's family under IC 31-34-21-5.5, the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in the child being placed in care outside the parent's home.(3) That there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d)(2) & (d)(3).

Kenworthy, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.