The juvenile court terminated the natural mother’s parental rights to her three children, M. A., T. A., and D. A. On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court erred in finding that: 1 there is clear and convincing evidence of present parental misconduct or inability; 2 continued deprivation is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotion, or moral harm to the children; and 3 termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interest. As the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the mother’s present misconduct or inability, we reverse. When reviewing an order terminating parental rights, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling and determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s right to custody should be terminated.”1
Viewed in this manner, the evidence shows that the Carroll County Department of Family and Children Services hereinafter “DFCS” became involved with the family of M. A., T. A., and D. A. in June 2001 because their home at the time lacked running water, was unsafe, unsanitary, and the children were dirty. In January 2002, the children’s father poured kerosene throughout the house and threatened to burn the house and everyone inside. Four months later he severely battered the children’s mother and was arrested and incarcerated. On August 23, 2002, M. A., T. A., and D. A. were taken into protective custody by DFCS after a case worker found the children living alone with their father. On the same day, the juvenile court entered an order finding probable cause of deprivation. DFCS filed a deprivation petition on August 27, 2002 and, after a hearing, the court granted DFCS temporary custody. The juvenile court subsequently entered an order of adjudication and disposition, finding that the children were deprived. Both parents stipulated to deprivation. On November 13, 2002, DFCS prepared a case plan for reunification that was subsequently adopted by order of the juvenile court. In addition to obtaining and maintaining stable income and housing, the plan required the parents to attend parenting classes, complete psychological evaluations and follow the recommendations proceeding therefrom, obtain counseling for domestic violence, and use “non-emotionally abusive” methods of interacting with children during visitation. The mother visited the children every week with few exceptions,2 and, as required by the case plan, obtained a psychological evaluation, completed parenting classes, and obtained employment. The mother was not able to obtain domestic violence counseling as there was none offered in Carroll County. During a hearing in January 2004, the juvenile court judge expressed that the mother had “made some real efforts.” After evidence was presented that the mother had “made significant progress on her case plan goals,” the court determined that the mother was ready for a trial placement of one of her children, M.A. Two weeks into the trial placement, however, M. A. was again taken into custody by DFCS when the mother left M. A. in the care of an individual whom DFCS had not approved in advance. There was no showing that the caregiver had a criminal record or in any way presented a danger to the child.
