In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.J.H. (Minor Child), and B.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Apr 30 2019, 9:43 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cynthia Phillips Smith Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination April 30, 2019
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of C.J.H. (Minor Child), 18A-JT-2570
and Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
B.H. (Father), The Honorable Faith A. Graham
Appellant-Respondent, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
v. 79D03-1801-JT-8
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 1 of 19
Case Summary
[1] B.H. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to C.J.H. (the
“Child”). We affirm.
Issues
[2] Father raises a single issue on appeal, which we restate as follows:
I. Whether the trial court properly concluded that the conditions
leading to the Child’s removal will not be remedied.
II. Whether the trial court properly concluded that termination
of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests.
Facts
[3] Father and Ch.H. (“Mother”) are the parents of the Child, who was born in
September 2015. 1 On August 25, 2016, the Tippecanoe County Office of the
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Mother and
Father were incarcerated following an incident of domestic violence. On
August 26, 2016, DCS removed the Child on an emergency basis due to
allegations of abuse and/or neglect; the Child has not returned to Mother’s or
1
Mother’s parental rights to the Child were also terminated; however, Mother is not a party to this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 2 of 19
Father’s care since his removal. That same day, DCS filed a petition that
alleged the Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”).
[4] On October 4, 2016, the State charged Father with domestic battery and offered
him a pretrial diversion if Father completed the Character Restoration program.
The trial court adjudicated the Child as a CHINS on November 15, 2016.
Pursuant to a dispositional order entered that day, Father was required to
undergo “parenting assessment and parenting education, substance abuse
assessment and treatment, domestic violence assessment and education, home-
based case management, individual counseling, random drug screens, and
parenting time.” App. Vol. II pp. 13-14.
[5] During the pendency, DCS referred Father to various service providers for
counseling, supervised visitation, and programming. Father was repeatedly
discharged from referrals for no-shows and cancellations. Father was also
incarcerated on criminal charges multiple times during the pendency of the
CHINS matter. On October 2, 2017, the State filed a petition to set a bench
trial for Father’s failure to complete the Character Restoration program. On
October 10, 2017, Father was convicted of possession of a synthetic drug, a
Class A misdemeanor; and on March 27, 2018, Father was convicted of
conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.
[6] On January 21, 2018, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights.
The trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on April 11, May 14, and June
29, 2018. DCS presented testimony of family case managers (“FCMs”), the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 3 of 19
director of the Character Restoration Center, and various service providers.
Father, who was once again incarcerated, testified on his behalf.
[7] On September 26, 2018, the trial court entered the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
1. There is a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in
removal of the child from the home or the reasons for continued
placement outside the home will not be remedied. Neither
parent has demonstrated the ability or willingness to make lasting
changes from past behaviors. There is no reasonable probability
that either parent will be able to maintain stability necessary to
care and provide for the child.
2. Continuation of the parent-child relationships poses a threat to
the well-being of the child. The child needs stability in life. The
child needs parents with whom the child can form a permanent
and lasting bond to provide for the child’s emotional and
psychological as well as physical wellbeing. The child’s well-
being would be threatened by keeping the child in parent-child
relationships with either parent whose own choices and actions
have made them unable to meet their own needs let alone the
needs of the child.
3. DCS has a satisfactory plan of adoption for the care and
treatment of this child following termination of parental rights.
The child can be adopted and there is reason to believe an
appropriate permanent home has or can be found for the child.
4. For the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of [the
Child] that the parental rights of [Mother] and [Father] be
terminated.
App. Vol. II p. 16. Father now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 4 of 19
Analysis
[8] Father challenges the termination of his parental relationship with the Child.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
traditional rights of parents to establish a home and raise their children. In re
K.T.K. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225,
1230 (Ind. 2013). “[A] parent’s interest in the upbringing of [his or her] child is
‘perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e]
[c]ourt[s].’” Id. (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054
(2000)). We recognize, of course, that parental interests are not absolute and
must be subordinated to the child’s best interests when determining the proper
disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. Id. Thus, “‘[p]arental
rights may be terminated when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their
parental responsibilities by failing to provide for the child’s immediate and long-
term needs.’” In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230 (quoting In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d
258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied).
[9] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge witness credibility. In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 923 (Ind.
2011). We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most
favorable to the judgment. Id. We must also give “due regard” to the trial
court’s unique opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
(quoting Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 5 of 19
[10] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(c), “The trial court shall enter
findings of fact that support the entry of the conclusions required by subsections
(a) and (b)” when granting a petition to terminate parental rights. 2 Here, the
trial court did enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in granting DCS’s
petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. When reviewing findings of fact
and conclusions of law entered in a case involving the termination of parental
rights, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. First, we determine whether
the evidence supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the
findings support the judgment. Id. We will set aside the trial court’s judgment
only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the
findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not
support the judgment. Id.
[11] Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(a) provides that “if the court finds that the
allegations in a petition described in [Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4] are true,
the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” Indiana Code Section
2
Indiana Code Sections 31-35-2-8(a) and (b), governing termination of a parent-child relationship involving a
delinquent child or CHINS, provide as follows:
(a) Except as provided in section 4.5(d) of this chapter, if the court finds that the
allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall
terminate the parent-child relationship.
(b) If the court does not find that the allegations in the petition are true, the court shall
dismiss the petition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 6 of 19
31-35-2-4(b)(2) provides that a petition to terminate a parent-child relationship
involving a child in need of services must allege, in part:
(B) That one (1) of the following is true:
(i) The child has been removed from the parent
for at least six (6) months under a
dispositional decree.
(ii) The court has entered a finding under IC 31-
34-21-5.6 that reasonable efforts for family
preservation or reunification are not required,
including a description of the court’s finding,
the date of the finding, and the manner in
which the finding was made.
(iii) 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.
(C) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 7 of 19
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the
continuation of the parent-child relationship
poses a threat to the well-being of the child.
(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions,
been adjudicated a child in need of services;
(D) that termination is in the best interests of the child;
and
(E) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and
treatment of the child.
DCS must establish these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In re
V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 (Ind. 2016).
[12] Father argues there is no evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions that
the conditions that led to the Child’s removal would not be remedied or that
continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing of
the Child. 3 Father also argues that there is no evidence that termination of
Father’s rights is in the best interests of the Child.
A. Continuation of Relationship Poses Threat to Wellbeing
[13] First, Father argues there is no evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion
that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing
3
Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive; therefore, we need only decide if the
trial court’s findings support one of these two requirements. See In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1999).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 8 of 19
of the Child. When considering whether there is sufficient evidence to support
such a finding, trial courts must “consider a parent’s habitual pattern of conduct
to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or
deprivation.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 152
(Ind. 2005). “At the same time, however, a trial court should judge a parent’s
fitness to care for his [or her] child as of the time of the termination proceeding,
taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.” Id.
[14] In concluding that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to
the Child’s wellbeing, the trial court reached the following pertinent findings
and conclusions:
...
3. Investigation confirmed that Father was arrested for Domestic
Battery. Both parents sustained minor injuries. Mother admitted
each parent struck the other parent during this incident and
disclosed a prior incident of Father pulling her hair. . . .
*****
11. At the onset of the CHINS case. Mother and Father
maintained housing. However, the parents have essentially been
homeless since approximately April 2017 after being evicted.
Both parents have prior evictions. At the time of the termination
hearing, . . . Father had been residing with a friend for a couple
of weeks.
12. Neither parent successfully maintained employment. [ ] . . .
Father reported part-time employment at $10.00 per hour.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 9 of 19
Father also receives social security benefits of approximately
$675.00 per month.
*****
20. The parents only sporadically participated in home-based
case management services. Case management goals included
time management, organization, transportation, housing, and
employment. . . . . Father also needed assistance and/or
monitoring regarding medication compliance. Father is diabetic
and did not take medications as prescribed. Little to no progress
was made toward these goals. The parents were discharged from
case management services at eight (8) different agencies for lack
of attendance.
21. The parents failed to consistently attend scheduled parenting
time which remained fully supervised throughout the CHINS
case. At times, the parents were prepared with supplies. At visits
attended, interactions between the parents and the child were
appropriate. The parents were discharged from six (6) separate
agencies for lack of attendance. Father last saw the child in April
2017. [ ] The parents failed to re-engage in supervised parenting
time services after the last referral in August 2017.
App. Vol. II pp. 13, 14-15.
[15] DCS presented testimony of various service providers, who confirmed that they
had no alternative, but to discharge Father from services for his inconsistency,
no-shows, and failure to otherwise engage in services. During its case in chief,
DCS presented the following evidence: Aliesha Walker, who served as FCM
regarding the Child, testified that Father was largely unsuccessful regarding
DCS’s case plan and failed to make significant progress regarding reunification
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 10 of 19
goals. Specifically, Walker testified that Father: (1) failed to complete home-
based case management because he was not “consistent with services” and was
“always cancelling appointments”; (2) failed to complete Character Restoration
“cause he was always missing it”; (3) was “not consistent” with random drug
screens; (4) failed to maintain consistent housing and steady employment; and
(5) “was not consistent” with visitation and gave “a lot of . . . excuses more
than reasons [for] why he would miss visitation.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 81, 82, 84, 85.
[16] Likewise, FCM Jamie Johansen testified that Father was routinely discharged
by service providers for his lack of communication and engagement. Johansen
testified that Father attended only twenty-one of thirty-five scheduled
supervised visits; and DCS did not “[see] enough consistency to progress”
beyond fully supervised visits. Id. at 165. Johansen testified further that DCS
made eight referrals for case management and that Mother and Father were
discharged eight times. Johansen also testified that Father: (1) failed to
complete the twenty-six-week Character Restoration domestic violence course;
(2) completed only ten of fifty-two drug screens; (3) tested positive for
marijuana on April 11, 2018; and (4) Father has been homeless since April
2017.
[17] Christina Pointer, formerly of Selah Academy, testified that Father’s supervised
visitation referral was terminated in April 2017 after Father missed three
consecutive visits. Morgan Salazar, formerly of Home-based Goal Focused
Counseling for Children and Families, testified that Father was “being late for
visits, no-showing, [and] canceling.” Id. at 122. Lisa Swaney, who supervised
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 11 of 19
Mother’s and Father’s visitation in early October 2016, testified that Father’s
supervised visitation was terminated in late November 2016 “due to several no-
shows [and] early cancellations,” including seven canceled visits and no-shows
in a one and one-half month period. Id. at 125, 126. Home-based mental
health therapist Melissa Cobarrubias testified that she scheduled six sessions
with Father, who no-showed for four.
[18] In the same vein, Janette Jackson of People Makers testified that Father was
referred for home-based casework and supervised visits in April 2017 and that
People Makers discharged him two months later. Jackson also testified that
Father exhibited “unwillingness” to participate in services, made “a lot of
excuses” regarding his lack of employment, and refused to take court-ordered
medication for his diabetes. Id. at 146.
[19] Tracey Winger, formerly a case manager with Arisings, testified that “we rarely
were able to make . . . continual weekly visits” due to “a lot of reschedules and
no-shows.” Id. at 132. Winger testified that Father indicated “that [he was]
actively seeking [employment]” but did not get a job while Winger was working
with him. Id. at 133. Arisings eventually discharged Father in April 2017 after
six or seven no-shows and following an exchange with Father regarding DCS’
involvement in his life that left Winger feeling “intimidated.” Id. at 136.
[20] DCS presented evidence of Father’s habitual patterns of apathy, lack of
initiative, and self-destructiveness. We are especially struck by Father’s refusal
to acknowledge or address the domestic violence issue that resulted in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 12 of 19
Child’s removal; Father’s disinclination to take his diabetes medication; his
rejection of DCS’ efforts to assist him with parenting and life skills; and his
inability to secure and maintain housing and employment during the two-year
pendency of the DCS action.
[21] Based on the foregoing, we find that DCS demonstrated that there is a
substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation if the parent-child
relationship is allowed to continue. Accordingly, we conclude that sufficient
evidence exists to support the trial court’s finding that continuation of the
parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing of the Child.
B. Best Interests of Child
[22] Next, Father argues that the trial court erred in concluding that termination of
his parental rights is in the best interests of the Child. Father argues, “There is a
bond between Father and his child, and it would not be in [the Child’s] best
interests to have his relationship with this biological parent severed. Case law
does not require that persons be model parents.” Appellant’s Br. pp. 15-16.
[23] In determining what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required
to look at the totality of the evidence. See In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d 158, 167-68
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In doing so, the trial court must subordinate the interests
of the parents to those of the child involved. Id. at 168. Termination of a
parent-child relationship is proper where the child’s emotional and physical
development is threatened. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. A trial court need not
wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 13 of 19
and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-
child relationship. Id. Additionally, a child’s need for permanency is a “central
consideration” in determining the best interests of a child. Id.
[24] Here, in determining that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the
Child’s best interests, the trial court reached the following findings and
conclusions, including findings already stated above:
...
11. At the onset of the CHINS case, Mother and Father
maintained housing. However, the parents have essentially been
homeless since approximately April 2017 after being evicted.
Both parents have prior evictions. At the time of the termination
hearing, Mother reported residing between a friend’s home and
the LUM Shelter and Father had been residing with a friend for a
couple of weeks.
12. Neither parent successfully maintained employment. [ ]
Father reported part-time employment at $10.00 per hour.
Father also receives social security benefits of approximately
$675.00 per month
*****
17. The parents have never addressed domestic violence issues.
DCS and service providers observed signs of power and control
issues between the parents. Mother and Father remained in a
relationship throughout most of the CHINS case although they
did not always reside together.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 14 of 19
18. Even though Mother reported more than just a few prior
incidents of domestic violence and that Father wanted to know
Mother’s whereabouts and actions at all times, she struggled to
identify herself as a victim of domestic violence. * * * * *
19. Father failed to complete domestic violence education at
Character Restoration. Father was unsuccessfully discharged
from individual therapy after attending only two (2) of six (6)
scheduled sessions. At the time of the termination hearing,
Father was still unable to acknowledge the nature and extent of
the domestic violence incident resulting in removal of the child
from the home. Father still denied any physical contact and
denied any injury.
20. The parents only sporadically participated in home-based
case management services. Case management goals included
time management, organization, transportation, housing, and
employment. [ ] Father also needed assistance and/or
monitoring regarding medication compliance. Father is diabetic
and did not take medications as prescribed. Little to no progress
was made toward these goals. The parents were discharged from
case management services at eight (8) different agencies for lack
of attendance.
21. The parents failed to consistently attend scheduled parenting
time which remained fully supervised throughout the CHINS
case. [ ] The parents were discharged from six (6) separate
agencies for lack of attendance. Father last saw the child in April
2017. Mother last saw the child in July 2017. The parents failed
to re-engage in supervised parenting time services after the last
referral in August 2017.
*****
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 15 of 19
23. CASA, Verdell Releford, supports termination of parental
rights in the best interests of the child. CASA noted the parents
have had no contact with the child in approximately a year. The
parents have made no progress toward reunification. The child is
bonded with the foster placement and has no special needs. The
child is adoptable even if the current foster placement is unable to
adopt for any reason.
App. Vol. II pp. 14-16.
[25] At the fact-finding hearing, DCS’ FCMs testified as follows regarding Father’s
attitude regarding his domestic violence issue: FCM Johansen testified that
Father refused to even acknowledge the domestic violence incident that
prompted DCS’ removal of the Child; denied having any domestic violence
issues; deflected blame to others; and rejected DCS’ services aimed toward
curbing domestic violence. Regarding the incident that prompted DCS’
involvement, Johansen testified:
. . .[ ] on August 25, 2016, [ ] both parents were incarcerated. []
[P]olice showed up to their home due to a domestic violence
incident, um, in which the mother and father were fighting with
each other. [T]he story about what has actually happened from
the parents has changed, um, but both parents . . . sustain[ed]
some minor injuries. [L]et’s see, um, mother reported that the
father threw a heater at her head and was hitting and kicking her.
[S]he also admitted to striking . . . [Father] in the face, um, when
[Father] had pulled the child from the Pack-N-Play by [the
Child’s] arm.
Tr. Vol. II p. 155.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 16 of 19
[26] Asked about her ongoing concerns, FCM Johansen testified that, in addition to
unaddressed issues of “manipulation and domestic violence” in Mother’s and
Father’ relationship, she was concerned that:
. . . [Mother and Father have] been chronically homeless since
around April 2017. [T]hat means they don’t have a stable home
to care for a child. [T]hey’ve been chronically unemployed.
That means they don’t have the means to support said child.
[T]hey, um, they’ve demonstrated inability to take care of their
own needs []as presented through, [Father] refusing to take his
[insulin] medication. [H]ow would they meet the needs of a
child if they can’t take care of themselves[?]
Tr. Vol. II p. 170.
[27] Next, FCM Walker testified:
. . . [Father] wanted to blame DCS for everything and he felt that
his child shouldn’t be, um, removed. So, it was a constant, um,
battle with him in not accepting why his child was removed and
to get him the help that he needed for why his child was
removed. So, um, he would become very argumentative, um,
and did not want to cooperate with services.
Id. at 86.
[28] Harry Heyer, director of the Character Restoration Center, testified that Father
failed to regularly attend and participate in classes; was “violated out per
program policy” three separate times for missing consecutive sessions; and
failed to meet the program objective of treating Father’s “problematic
patternistic behaviors.” Id. at 23-24, 27. Heyer testified that consecutive
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 17 of 19
program attendance is critical because data on domestic violence establishes
that, after missing two consecutive classes, “[attendees’] cognition goes back to
the same problematic thinking” that prompted the referral. Id. at 23.
[29] Mother testified that the August 2017 domestic violence incident “unfolded in
front of [the] child,” who was eight months old. Id. at 64. Mother testified that
she identifies as a domestic violence victim; that she and Father had multiple
prior physical altercations before the August 2017 incident; and that she was
“not continuing a relationship [with Father]” because it is unhealthy to do so.
Id. at 67.
[30] DCS presented evidence that Father simply refused to address his domestic
violence issues throughout the two-year CHINS pendency. Coupled with
Father’s failure to participate in services, his failure to secure and maintain
housing and employment during the pendency of the CHINS action, his
chronic incarcerations, and the fact that the Child has lived with—and thrived
in the care of—the same pre-adoptive foster family for the nearly-three-year
period since the Child’s removal, we find that the totality of the evidence
supports the trial court’s finding that termination of the parent-child
relationship is in the Child’s best interests. As the trial court stated:
The child needs stability in life. The child needs parents with
whom the child can form a permanent and lasting bond to
provide for the child’s emotional and psychological as well as
physical wellbeing. The child’s well[]being would be threatened
by keeping the child in parent-child relationships with either
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 18 of 19
parent whose own choices and actions have made them unable to
meet their own needs let alone the needs of the child.
App. Vol. II p. 16. We agree. Ever mindful of the Child’s need for
permanency, we find that the Child’s emotional and physical development
would be threatened if the parent-child relationship is allowed to continue. We
reiterate that a trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such
that his or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently
impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d
at 1235. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding
that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests is
clearly erroneous.
Conclusion
[31] Sufficient evidence supports the termination of Father’s parental rights. We
affirm.
[32] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2570 | April 30, 2019 Page 19 of 19