Mathias, J.
L.N. (“Mother”) and the Heartland Adoption Agency (collectively “the Appellants”) appeal the Monroe Circuit Court’s order dismissing the Heartland Adoption Agency’s petition to terminate M.C.’s parental rights.
We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
….
The trial court questioned counsel concerning whether the petition to terminate M.C.’s parent-child relationship with M.N. was permitted under Indiana Code section 31-35-1-4. The trial court also expressed concern that public policy might prevent the court from granting the petition. Therefore, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
On October 2, 2014, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon dismissing the petition to terminate M.C.’s parental rights. The trial court concluded that to file a petition to terminate a parent’s rights, the licensed child placing agency must be acting within the scope of its statutorily defined duties. “Nothing in the enabling statutes would allow a LCPA to file a petition to terminate the rights of one parent while maintaining the rights of the other parent when there is no issue of child placement, supervision, or adoption.” Id. at 17.
….
Indiana Code section 31-35-1-4 does not restrict a licensed child placing agency’s reasons for filing a petition to voluntarily terminate parental rights. The statute plainly and unambiguously states that a licensed child placing agency “may sign and file a verified petition with the juvenile or probate court for the voluntary termination of the parent-child relationship” at the parents’ request. I.C. § 31-35-1-4.
Here, as required by the plain language of Indiana Code section 31-35-1-4, Mother retained Heartland Adoption Agency, a licensed child placing agency, to file a petition to voluntarily terminate M.C.’s parental rights to M.N. Although the petition alleged that M.C.’s consent to the termination of the parent-child relationship was not required because he had abandoned M.N., M.C. later agreed to voluntarily relinquish his parent-child relationship with M.N. [Footnote omitted.]
This case presents a very unique set of circumstances. M.C. is not present in M.N.’s life but does occasionally pay his court-ordered child support. M.C.’s occasional financial support negatively affects the amount of M.N.’s SSI payment, and Mother must complete additional “burdensome” paperwork to resume and maintain M.N.’s SSI payment. Mother, as M.N.’s only caregiver, would rather forego any child support from M.C. in order to facilitate and protect M.N.’s SSI payment.
Heartland Adoption Agency, as a licensed child placing agency, is providing “child welfare services” to M.N. and Mother by assisting them with maintaining M.N.’s SSI disability payments. [Footnote omitted.] See Ind. Code §§ 31-9-2-17.5, 19.5 (stating that a child placing agency is “a person that provides child welfare services to children and families” and “child welfare services” are services “provided under a child welfare program”). Without M.N.’s disability SSI payment, we may reasonably infer that Mother would struggle to provide for M.N.’s special needs.
For all of these reasons, we conclude that Heartland Adoption Agency’s petition to terminate M.C.’s parental rights to M.N. at Mother’s request met the statutory requirements of Indiana Code section 31-35-1-4, and the trial court erred when it concluded that Heartland Adoption Agency acted outside the scope of its statutory authorization as a licensed child placing agency when it filed the petition to terminate M.C.’s parental rights.
….
Friedlander, J., and Bradford, J., concur.