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


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of establishing                            FILED
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                            Nov 14 2019, 8:35 am
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                       CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT J.W.                             ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Anthony C. Lawrence                                     Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Anderson, Indiana                                       Attorney General of Indiana
    Monika Prekopa Talbot
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Matter of the Termination                        November 14, 2019
    of the Parent–Child Relationship                        Court of Appeals Case No.
    of C.W. and J.C. (Minor                                 19A-JT-1140
    Children)                                               Appeal from the Madison Circuit
    and                                                     Court
    The Honorable G. George Pancol,
    J.W. (Father),                                          Judge
    Appellant-Respondent,
    Trial Court Cause Nos.
    v.                                              48C02-1810-JT-171
    48C02-1810-JT-172
    The Indiana Department of
    Child Services,
    Appellee-Petitioner.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019            Page 1 of 10
    Bradford, Judge.
    Case Summary
    [1]   J.W. (“Father”) and S.C. (“Mother”),1 (collectively “Parents”), are the
    biological parents of J.C. (born July 28, 2004) and C.W. (born November 16,
    2010), (collectively “the Children”). In January of 2017, the Children were
    adjudicated to be children in need of services (“CHINS”) after Parents admitted
    to such due to substance abuse issues. In October of 2018, the Department of
    Child Services (“DCS”) petitioned for the termination of Parents’ parental
    rights. On April 22, 2019, the juvenile court ordered that Parents’ rights to the
    Children be terminated. Father contends that the juvenile court’s termination of
    his parental rights was clearly erroneous. We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]       On October 21, 2016, DCS removed the Children from Mother’s home due to
    concerns over substance abuse. DCS was unable to locate Father at the time of
    1
    Mother does not appeal the termination of her parental rights.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 2 of 10
    removal. On October 25, 2016, DCS petitioned for the Children to be
    adjudicated CHINS. On January 10, 2017, Parents appeared before the juvenile
    court and admitted that the Children were CHINS due to substance abuse. On
    February 15, 2017, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on the
    CHINS petition and ordered Father to, inter alia, maintain weekly contact with
    DCS; notify DCS of any changes in address, household composition,
    employment, telephone number, or any criminal charges within five days;
    enroll in any programs recommended by the family case manager (“FCM”);
    refrain from any use or possession of illegal drugs; complete a substance-abuse
    assessment and follow all recommendations; submit to random drug screens;
    participate in home-based counseling and individual and family therapy; and
    attend scheduled visitation with the Children. That same month, Father was
    arrested and charged with Level 6 felony methamphetamine possession.
    [3]   On October 4, 2017, the juvenile court held a review hearing and found that
    Father’s visitation services were closed out for inconsistent attendance, and
    after being reinstated, were again suspended upon the advice of the Children’s
    therapist after J.C. refused to attend. Father’s home-based casework was also
    closed out for noncompliance. On May 30, 2018, the juvenile court conducted a
    modification hearing and found that Father had “consistently failed to comply
    with services with the only active service being individual therapy for [Father],
    a service focused on his substance issues, and not on the children.” Appellant’s
    App. Vol. II p. 20. As a result, the juvenile court added a concurrent
    permanency plan of adoption. On October 17, 2018, DCS petitioned for the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 3 of 10
    termination of Parents’ parental rights. The juvenile court held evidentiary
    hearings on October 17, November 21, and December 4, 2018, and January 22
    and February 19, 2019.
    [4]   At an evidentiary hearing, J.C. testified that she could not remember the last
    time she had seen her Father and asked the juvenile court to “[g]et [her] as close
    to adoption as they can.” Tr. p. 34. Court-appointed special advocate
    (“CASA”) Traci Barber later testified that as a result of having had to testify in
    this matter, J.C. “felt suicidal” and had to have her therapy increased. Tr. p. 86.
    CASA Barber also testified that she believed there was no reasonable
    probability that the reasons that resulted in the Children’s removal would be
    remedied and that the Parents’ parental rights should be terminated.
    [5]   FCM Rob Belt testified that he did not believe there was a reasonable
    probability that the conditions that lead to the Children’s removal would be
    remedied and that adoption of the Children was in their best interests. FCM
    Belt cited Father’s continued drug use throughout this matter, which consisted
    of positive drug screens for methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine, and
    THC. FCM Belt testified that Father had failed to maintain weekly contact with
    DCS or participate in family counseling and only started participating in
    individual counseling toward the end of this case. On April 22, 2019, the
    juvenile court ordered that Father’s parental rights in the Children be
    terminated.
    Discussion and Decision
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 4 of 10
    [6]   The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
    traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v.
    Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 
    839 N.E.2d 143
    , 147 (Ind. 2005). “Though
    it’s been oft-stated, it bears repeating: the parent–child relationship is one of the
    most valued relationships in our culture.” Matter of M.I., 
    127 N.E.3d 1168
    ,
    1170–71 (Ind. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Parental rights,
    however, are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s interests
    when determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate the parent–
    child relationship. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147. Therefore, when parents are
    unwilling or unable to fulfill their parental responsibilities their rights may be
    terminated. Id.
    [7]   In reviewing the termination of parental rights on appeal, we neither reweigh
    the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Doe v. Daviess Cty. Div. of
    Children & Family Servs., 
    669 N.E.2d 192
    , 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.
    We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which are
    most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment. 
    Id.
     Where, as here, a juvenile
    court has entered findings of facts and conclusions of law, our standard of
    review is two-tiered. 
    Id.
     First, we determine whether the evidence supports the
    factual findings, second, whether the factual findings support the judgment. 
    Id.
    The juvenile court’s findings and judgment will only be set aside if found to be
    clearly erroneous. 
    Id.
     A finding is clearly erroneous if no facts or inferences
    drawn therefrom support it. In re R.J., 
    829 N.E.2d 1032
    , 1035 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2005). “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 5 of 10
    juvenile court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.”
    
    Id.
    [8]   Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b) dictates what DCS is required to establish to
    support a termination of parental rights. Of relevance to this case, DCS was
    required to establish by clear and convincing evidence
    (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.
    (iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been
    adjudicated a child in need of services[.]
    [and]
    (C) that termination is in the best interests of the child[.]
    
    Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4
    (b)(2).2 In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to
    sustain the termination of his parental rights, Father contends that the juvenile
    court erred by concluding that (1) there is a reasonable probability that the
    2
    It is not disputed that the Children had been removed from Father for at least six months under a
    dispositional decree and that there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, both
    required findings pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019                   Page 6 of 10
    conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal would not be remedied and
    (2) termination of his parental rights was in the Children’s best interests.3
    I. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)
    [9]    Father contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable
    probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal would
    not be remedied.
    [10]            In determining whether the conditions that resulted in the
    child[ren]’s removal…will not be remedied, we engage in a two-
    step analysis[.] First, we identify the conditions that led to
    removal; and second, we determine whether there is a reasonable
    probability that those conditions will not be remedied. In the
    second step, the trial court must judge a parent’s fitness as of the
    time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration
    evidence of changed conditions—balancing a parent’s recent
    improvements against habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine
    whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or
    deprivation. We entrust that delicate balance to the trial court,
    which has discretion to weigh a parent’s prior history more
    heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination.
    Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions
    does not preclude them from finding that parents’ past behavior
    is the best predictor of their future behavior.
    3
    Father also seemingly contends that the juvenile court erroneously concluded that the continuation of the
    parent–child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child. However, because the juvenile court
    never reached this conclusion, we will not address this claim.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019                  Page 7 of 10
    In re E.M., 
    4 N.E.3d 636
    , 642–43 (Ind. 2014) (internal citations, quotations, and
    footnote omitted, first and third set of brackets in original, second set added).
    [11]   The condition that led to the Children’s removal was substance abuse. We
    conclude that DCS has produced ample evidence to establish a reasonable
    probability that this condition would not be remedied. First, Father was
    arrested and charged with Level 6 felony methamphetamine possession. Father
    has also screened positive for illegal drugs twelve times. Father has tested
    positive for opiates, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamines, and THC.
    Moreover, Father has failed to maintain sobriety throughout this matter or
    complete ordered services. Although Father completed his substance-abuse
    assessment, he failed to attend in-patient treatment as recommended. CASA
    Barber testified that “Father has been unable to consistently stay clean
    throughout the case” and has been unable to finish services. Tr. p. 86. While it
    is true that Father completed an out-patient program in November of 2018
    shortly before the termination proceedings began, the juvenile court was
    entitled to conclude that this was outweighed by Father’s history of drug use
    throughout this matter and did so. See K.T.K. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs.,
    Dearborn Cty. Office, 
    989 N.E.2d 1225
    , 1234 (Ind. 2013) (concluding that the trial
    court was within its discretion to disregard Mother’s efforts that were made
    only shortly before termination and to weigh more heavily Mother’s history of
    conduct prior to said efforts). The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by
    concluding that the conditions that led to the Children’s removal would not be
    remedied.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 8 of 10
    II. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C)
    [12]   Father contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
    conclusion that termination of his parental rights was in the Children’s best
    interests. We are mindful that, in determining what is in the best interests of a
    child, the juvenile court must look beyond factors identified by DCS and
    consider the totality of the evidence. In re J.S., 
    906 N.E.2d 226
    , 236 (Ind. Ct.
    App. 2009). The juvenile court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed
    before terminating the parent–child relationship because it must subordinate the
    interests of the parents to those of the children. McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of
    Family & Children, 
    798 N.E.2d 185
    , 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We have
    previously held that recommendations from the FCM and CASA to terminate
    parental rights, in addition to evidence that conditions resulting in removal will
    not be remedied, is sufficient evidence to show that termination is in the child’s
    best interests. In re J.S., 
    906 N.E.2d at 236
    .
    [13]   CASA Barber testified that termination of Father’s parental rights and adoption
    was in the Children’s best interests. FCM Belt also testified that adoption was in
    the Children’s best interests. While coupling that testimony with our previous
    conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to show that the conditions of
    removal would not be remedied is sufficient to support the juvenile court’s
    termination of Father’s parental rights, it is not as though this testimony is
    unsupported by other evidence in the record.
    [14]   In addition to his inability to maintain sobriety, Father admitted that in over
    two years since this matter began, he has not completed a single service that
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 9 of 10
    was ordered by the juvenile court. Moreover, visitation was closed out because
    of Father’s failure to attend, and once reopened, it was ceased due the
    recommendation of the Children’s therapist after J.C. refused to attend. Last,
    Father’s relationship with the Children appears to be harmful to their well-
    being. J.C. requested that the juvenile court “[g]et [her] as close to adoption as
    they can.” Tr. p. 34. Following that testimony, CASA Barber explained that
    J.C.’s therapy had to be intensified because she felt suicidal. The Children’s
    foster parent Amy Wolfe also testified that following J.C.’s testimony, she was
    “extremely emotionally fragile,” and “[they] had to up a lot of her services.” Tr.
    p. 82. Wolfe testified, however, that since being placed in her home the
    Children are “flourishing.” 
    Id.
     J.C. is a member of the high school dance team
    and has made several friends. C.W. is in gymnastics, girl scouts, and making
    tremendous strides academically. Considering the totality of the evidence,
    Father has failed to establish that the juvenile court’s determination that
    termination was in the Children’s best interest was clearly erroneous.
    [15]   The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
    Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1140| November 14, 2019   Page 10 of 10