Castro v. State Office of Family & Children

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the State is not required to offer a parent services aimed at reunification with the child when the parent is incarcerated
• recognizing that “[i]ndividuals who pursue criminal activity run the risk of being denied the opportunity to develop positive and meaningful relationships with their children”
• holding that “[i]ndividuals who pursue criminal activity run the risk of being denied the opportunity to develop positive and meaningful relationships with their children.”
• concluding that the trial court did not commit clear error in finding conditions leading to child’s removal from father would not be remedied where father, who had been incarcerated throughout CHINS and termination proceedings, was not expected to be released until after termination hearing
• noting that Indiana Code 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive and the juvenile court need only find one of the three elements by clear and convincing evidence
• determining DCS’s failure to offer incarcerated parent services did not constitute deprivation of due process rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).