In Re: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.T. (Minor Child) M.T. (Mother) 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, 9:26 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: The Termination of the April 30, 2019
Parent-Child Relationship of Court of Appeals Case No.
K.T. (Minor Child); 18A-JT-2228
M.T. (Mother), Appeal from the Floyd Circuit
Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable J. Terrence Cody,
v. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
The Indiana Department of 22C01-1712-JT-918
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] M.T. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with
her daughter, K.T. (“K.T”). Mother specifically argues that the trial court’s
findings of fact are insufficient to satisfy the statutory mandate found in
INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-8(c). Concluding that the trial court’s findings of fact
are deficient, we remand to the trial court for proper findings that support the
judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights.
[2] We remand.
Issue
Whether the trial court’s findings of fact are insufficient to satisfy
the statutory mandate found in INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-8(c).
Facts
[3] K.T. was born in December 2006. In September 2015, Mother and DCS
entered into an informal adjustment because of Mother’s drug use and her
“educational neglect” of K.T. (Ex. Vol. at 8). Mother continued to test positive
for methamphetamine, and, in March 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging that
K.T. was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). The trial court adjudicated
K.T. to be a CHINS in June 2016. K.T. continued to live with Mother during
the proceedings. However, Mother continued to use methamphetamine, and
DSC filed for an emergency custody order in late June 2016. The trial court
authorized DCS to remove K.T. from Mother’s home, and K.T. was placed in
the home of a family friend.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[4] In July 2016, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and ordered Mother to:
(1) complete certain services; (2) keep all appointments; (3) obtain stable
housing; (4) abstain from the use of illegal substances; (5) complete a substance
abuse assessment and follow all recommendations; (6) submit to random drug
screens; and (7) attend all scheduled visits with K.T. One year later, in
September 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’ parental rights. The
trial court held an evidentiary hearing in July 2018 and issued a one-page
termination order in August 2018. The findings and conclusions in that order
are as follows:
It was established by clear and convincing evidence that the
allegations of the petition are true in that:
The child had been removed from her parent(s) for at least
six (6) months under a disposition of decree of the Floyd
Court, dates . . . in cause number . . . .
There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that
resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for the
placement outside the parent’s home will not be remedied
in that: Mother has not been compliant with the services
to address the reasons for removal and has continued to
use drugs. The alleged father’s whereabouts are unknow
and he has not participated in any visitation or services.
Termination is in the child’s best interests of the child in
that: Mother has not participated in services to enhance
her ability to fulfill her parental obligations has
displayed unpredictable behavior. The alleged father
has not had any contact with DCS or the child
throughout the life of the CHINS case.
The Department of Child Services has a satisfactory plan
for the care and treatment of the child, which is: adoption.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 3 of 6
(App. Vol. 2 at 65-66). Mother now appeals the termination.
Decision
[5] Mother argues that the trial court’s findings of fact are insufficient to satisfy the
statutory mandate found in INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-8(c). We agree.
[6] In recognition of the seriousness with which we regard parental termination
cases, Indiana has adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof
and a clearly erroneous standard of review. In re Involuntary Termination of
Parent-Child Relationship of N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263, 1264-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Our review for clear error requires us to determine first whether the evidence
supports the trial court’s findings and then whether the findings support the
judgment. Id. at 1265. This means that the trial court’s findings of fact, which
are required by INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-8(c),1 and its conclusions thereon are
crucial to our review. Id. Accordingly, where the findings and conclusions are
sparse or improperly stated and do not adequately address each of the
requirements of the termination statute,2 we cannot conduct an adequate
1
INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-8 provides that the “court shall enter findings of fact that support the entry of the
conclusions” terminating a parent-child relationship. (Emphasis added).
2
[1] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is required to allege and prove, among
other things:
(B) 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.
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child
relationship poses a threat to the well- being of the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 4 of 6
review. Id. In addition, we are “not at liberty to scour the record to find
evidence to support the judgment[.]” Id.
[7] Here, the trial court’s findings and conclusions comprise less than one page.
(App. Vol. 2 at 65-66). With respect to the requirements for termination set
forth in IND. CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2), the trial court concluded that there was a
reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal or
the reasons for placement outside the parent’s home would not be remedied
because Mother had not been compliant with the services to address the reasons
for the removal and had continued to use drugs. However, the trial court has
failed to set forth facts detailing Mother’s failure to comply with the court-
ordered services and her continued use of drugs. The trial court also concluded
that termination was in K.T.’s best interests because “Mother had not
participated in services and had displayed unpredictable behavior.” (App. Vol.
2 at 55). However, the trial court has not set forth facts detailing Mother’s
failure to participate in services or her display of unpredictable behavior.
[8] These findings are “so sparse that we cannot discern whether [the trial court]
based its termination order on proper statutory considerations.” N.G., 61
(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a child in need
of services;
(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.
IND. CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 5 of 6
N.E.3d at 1266. Because we are not at liberty to scour the record to find
evidence to support the judgment, we remand with instructions for the trial
court to enter proper findings of fact and conclusions thereon to support the
termination of Mother’s parental rights.
[9] Remanded.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-2228 | April 30, 2019 Page 6 of 6