In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.S.

R.S. (the father) (defendant) and L.H. were the parents of 10-year-old R.S. II (R.S.). While the father was incarcerated from 2009 to 2013, he remained in contact with R.S. by writing letters and completed various parenting and self-improvement courses. After his release, he completed a commercial-driver’s-license course and completed probation, a condition of which was completing substance-abuse treatment and a 52-week domestic-violence counseling program. In 2014, the Department of Child Services (department) (plaintiff) alleged that R.S. was a child in need of services (CHINS) due to L.H.’s drug use and the father’s lack of involvement. R.S. was placed with his maternal grandmother and later found to be a CHINS as to both parents. The father was ordered to participate in various services but failed to do so and failed to appear for numerous court hearings. However, he visited with R.S. multiple times per week during this time. In 2015, the department filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. L.H. consented to adoption. At trial, the case manager, therapist, and guardian ad litem acknowledged R.S.’s close bond with his father but agreed that he should be adopted by his grandmother. The guardian ad litem recommended continued visitation with the father. The trial court concluded that adoption was in R.S.’s best interests because continuing the parent-child relationship would deprive R.S. of permanency. The father appealed, the appeals court affirmed, and the case was transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court. The father argued that there was not clear and convincing evidence that (1) termination was in R.S.’s best interests or (2) there was no satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of R.S.