In Re: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.J. Sy.J., Sy'B.J., (minor children) L.J. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 30 2019, 8:40 am
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
Jennie Scott Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: the Termination of the October 30, 2019
Parent-Child Relationship of: Court of Appeals Case No.
S.J. Sy.J., Sy’B.J., (minor 19A-JT-755
children); Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
L.J. (Mother), Court
The Honorable Kimberly S.
Appellant-Respondent,
Dowling, Judge
v. Trial Court Cause No.
18C02-1805-JT-42
18C02-1805-JT-43
The Indiana Department of
18C02-1805-JT-44
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 1 of 14
Statement of the Case
[1] L.J. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with
her children S.J. (“S.J.”), Sy.J. (“Sy.J.”), and Sy’B.J. (“Sy’B.J.”), (collectively
“the children”).1 She contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying her oral
motion to dismiss the petition for untimeliness of the factfinding hearing; and
(2) there is insufficient evidence to support the terminations. Specifically,
Mother argues that the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that: (a) there is a reasonable probability that
the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for
placement outside the home will not be remedied; (b) a continuation of the
parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well-being; (c)
termination of the parent-child relationship is in the children’s best interests;
and (d) adoption was a satisfactory plan for the children’s care and treatment.
Concluding that: (1) Mother has waived her right to challenge the untimeliness
of the factfinding hearing; and (2) there is sufficient evidence to support the
termination of the parent-child relationships, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
[1] We affirm.
1
The children’s father (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 2 of 14
Issues
1. Whether Mother has waived her right to challenge the
untimeliness of the factfinding hearing.
2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
terminations.
Decision
[2] Mother is the parent of S.J., who was born in September 2008; Sy.J., who was
born in May 2007; Sy’B.J., who was born in November 2004. In October 2016,
DCS filed petitions alleging that the children were in need of services
(“CHINS”) because: (1) they had been absent from school on more than half of
the scheduled school days; (2) they had been tardy to school on eleven
occasions; (3) Mother and Father had an ongoing struggle to maintain suitable
housing; (4) sixteen family members resided in the family’s home;2 (5) Father
was recovering from a debilitating stroke and alcoholism; and (6) Mother and
Father had a twenty-year history with DCS that included nine prior
substantiations. The children were not removed from the home at that time.
[3] The next month, in November 2016, the trial court found an emergency existed
because of Mother’s drug use, the educational neglect of the children, and
Father’s medical restrictions. Based upon the emergency, the trial authorized
DCS to take the children into custody and place them in foster care. In
December 2016, Mother admitted that her children were CHINS. After a
2
Mother subsequently admitted that there were twelve family members living in the family’s home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 3 of 14
dispositional hearing, in February 2017, the trial court ordered Mother to: (1)
maintain suitable housing; (2) abstain from the use of illegal controlled
substances; (3) submit to random drug screens; (4) complete a substance abuse
assessment, follow all assessment recommendations, and successfully complete
all treatment programs.
[4] Two years later, in April 2018, the trial court found that Mother had not
complied with its dispositional order. Specifically, the court found that
although Mother had completed a substance abuse assessment, she had not
successfully completed the recommended treatment. The court further found
that Mother had not maintained suitable housing or abstained from the use of
illegal drugs.
[5] The following month, on May 16, 2018, DCS filed a petition to terminate
Mother’s parental rights and requested a hearing. The trial court scheduled the
factfinding hearing for September 20, 2018, which was 127 days from the date
that the petition had been filed. None of the parties objected to the scheduled
date.
[6] At the end of the September 20 hearing, the trial court scheduled the hearing to
be completed on December 13, 2018, which was 211 days after the petition had
been filed. None of the parties objected to the date. The December 2018
hearing was scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. Mother asked whether the hearing
would include the full half-day and whether she would be able to call any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 4 of 14
witnesses. The trial court responded that the hearing included the full-half day
and that Mother would “absolutely” be able to call witnesses. (Tr. at 79).
[7] At the beginning of the December 2018 hearing, Father’s counsel made an oral
motion to dismiss the case pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-6, arguing that
it had been more than 180 days since the termination petition had been filed.
Mother’s counsel stated that Mother “would like to join in that motion.” (Tr.
83). The trial court denied the motion.
[8] Testimony at the termination hearing revealed that Mother had completed a
substance abuse assessment in December 2016. At that time, the assessor had
recommended that Mother participate in an inpatient detoxification program to
be followed by an intensive outpatient drug treatment program because of her
daily use of methamphetamine. The testimony further revealed that Mother
had not followed the treatment recommendation.
[9] Mother completed two additional substance abuse assessments in 2017. Both
of those assessors had recommended that Mother attend an inpatient drug
treatment program. Mother again failed to follow the recommendations.
Mother completed a fourth substance abuse assessment in March 2018. At that
time Mother’s drug use had become more severe because Mother had begun
taking opiates, including heroin, in addition to the methamphetamine. The
assessor again recommended an inpatient detoxification program to be followed
by an intensive outpatient drug treatment program. Mother again failed to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 5 of 14
follow the treatment recommendation. In addition, during the pendency of the
proceedings, all of Mother’s drug screens were positive.
[10] Family Case Manager Carrie Emmons (“FCM Emmons”) testified that she had
been assigned to the case since November 2016. According to FCM Emmons,
five of Mother’s children had initially been involved in the case. One of the
children had aged out and voluntarily left services and another had opted to
enter a collaborative care program. FCM Emmons explained that the reason
for the children’s removal was educational neglect and Mother’s substance use.
Mother had told FCM Emmons that she was trying to stop using drugs but that
she had been unable to do so. FCM Emmons further testified that Mother had
not had stable housing for the previous year, and that the three children had
been in foster care since November 2016. The permanency plan for the
children was adoption.
[11] In addition, the Court-Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) told the trial
court that termination was in the children’s best interests so that they could be
adopted. The CASA also told the trial court that Mother had not “engaged in
services in any meaningful way over the course of the last couple years, and
um, [was] not in any position to care for the children[.]” (Tr. at 132).
[12] Following the hearing, the trial court issued orders terminating Mother’s
parental rights to each of her three children. Mother now appeals the
terminations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 6 of 14
Decision
Mother argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying her oral motion to
dismiss the petition for untimeliness of the factfinding hearing; and (2) there is
insufficient evidence to support the terminations. We address each of her
arguments in turn.
1. Motion to Dismiss
[13] Mother first challenges the denial of her oral motion to dismiss the termination
petition for untimeliness of the factfinding hearing. INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-6
sets forth the timeline for conducting factfinding hearings in termination of
parental rights proceedings, where, as here, a party requests a hearing. The
statute provides as follows:
(a) Except when a hearing is required after June 30, 1999,
under section 4.5 of this chapter, the person filing the
petition shall request the court to set the petition for a
hearing. Whenever a hearing is requested under this
chapter, the court shall:
(1) commence a hearing on the petition not more
than ninety (90) days after a petition is filed under
this chapter; and
(2) complete a hearing on the petition not more than
one hundred and eighty (180) days after a petition is
filed under this chapter.
(b) If a hearing is not held within the time set forth in
subsection (a), upon filing a motion with the court by a
party, the court shall dismiss the petition to terminate the
parent-child relationship without prejudice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 7 of 14
IND. CODE § 31-35-2-6.
[14] Here, the factfinding hearing did not commence within 90 days of the filing of
the filing of the petition and the hearing request was not completed within 180
days of the filing of the petition. Rather, as Mother points out, the hearing
began 127 days after the petition had been filed and the hearing had been
requested and was completed 211 days after the petition had been filed. Mother
contends that because the factfinding hearing was untimely, the trial court
should have granted her motion to dismiss.
[15] We addressed this issue in In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child
Relationship of N.C., 83 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). There, the
termination factfinding hearing was held in March 2017, 222 days after the
filing of the termination petition. Referring to INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-6 , the
father orally moved for the dismissal of the termination petition at the outset of
the March 2017 factfinding hearing. The trial court both denied the motion and
terminated the father’s parental rights after a hearing. On appeal, the father
argued that the trial court had erred in denying his motion to dismiss.
[16] Another panel of this Court first pointed out that the plain language of the
statute contemplates the “filing” of a motion with the court. Id. at 1267. The
father, however, had filed no written motion. Rather, he had orally moved for
dismissal at the outset of the factfinding hearing. Moreover, this Court pointed
out that the father had acquiesced to the factfinding hearing date when it was
scheduled in December 2016. Id. Specifically, when the court reporter at the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 8 of 14
December 2016 hearing had suggested the March 2017 hearing date, the
father’s counsel had responded: “That sounds good.” Id. The father’s counsel
had then asked about the specific length of the factfinding hearing. He never
objected to the date. We held that, even though the factfinding hearing date
had fallen outside the statutory 180 days, the father had waived his right to
challenge the setting of the date. Id.
[17] Here, as in N.C., Mother orally moved for the petition’s dismissal at the
beginning of the December 2018 hearing, but she filed no written motion. In
addition, when the trial court scheduled the factfinding hearing outside the
statutory 90 days, Mother’s counsel asked about procedural aspects of the
hearing but never objected to the hearing date. Thus, Mother has waived her
right to challenge the setting of the hearing date. See e.g., N.C., 83 N.E.2d at
1267.
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[18] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.
However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of
the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Id. at
1188. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where a child’s
emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. Although the right to
raise one’s own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 9 of 14
home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is
unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. Id.
[19] 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.
(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). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by
clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d
1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).
[20] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh
the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625,
628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences
to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 10 of 14
trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand.
K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.
[21] Mother first argues that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that: (1) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the
children’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home will not be
remedied; and (2) a continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat
to the children’s well-being. However, we note that INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-
4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive. Therefore, DCS is required to establish
by clear and convincing evidence only one of the three requirements of
subsection (B). In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans.
dismissed. We therefore discuss only whether there is a reasonable probability
that the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for
their placement outside the home will not be remedied.
[22] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child’s removal or
placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step
analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). We first identify the
conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and then
determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will
not be remedied. Id. The second step requires trial courts to judge a parent’s
fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration
evidence of changed conditions and balancing any recent improvements against
habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial
probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. Habitual conduct may include
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 11 of 14
parents’ prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect,
failure to provide support, and a lack of adequate housing and employment.
A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013),
trans. denied. The trial court may also consider services offered to the parent by
DCS and the parent’s response to those services as evidence of whether
conditions will be remedied. Id.[23] Here, our review of the evidence and any reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom that support the judgment reveals that the children were removed
from the parents’ home because of educational neglect and Mother’s drug use.
At the time of the termination hearing, Mother was still using
methamphetamine and had begun using opiates. Mother had completed four
substance abuse assessments during the course of the proceedings. One
assessor had twice recommended inpatient detoxification and intensive
outpatient substance abuse programs. Other assessors had recommended
inpatient treatment programs. Mother failed to follow the recommendations
and had positive drug screens throughout the proceedings. This evidence
supports the trial court’s conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that
the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal would not be remedied.
We find no error.
[24] Mother also argues that there is insufficient evidence that the termination was
in the children’s best interests. In determining whether termination of parental
rights is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the
totality of the evidence. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 12 of 14
trans. denied. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parents
to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of the parent-child relationship
is proper where the child’s emotional and physical development is threatened.
In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. “‘A parent’s
historical inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision
coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a finding that
continuation of the parent-child relationship is contrary to the child’s best
interest.’” In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting
Matter of Adoption of D.V.H., 604 N.E.2d 634, 638 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans.
denied, superseded by rule on other grounds). Further, the testimony of the service
providers may support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.
McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2003).
[25] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Mother has historically been
unable to provide housing, stability, and supervision for her children and was
unable to provide the same at the time of the termination hearing. In addition,
the CASA told the trial court that termination was in the children’s best
interests. The testimony of this service provider, as well as the other evidence
previously discussed, supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination was
in the children’s best interests.
[26] Last, Mother argues that DCS does not have a satisfactory plan for the
children’s care and treatment. This Court has previously explained that the
plan for the care and treatment of the child need not be detailed, so long as it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 13 of 14
offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the
parent-child relationship is terminated. In re L.B., 889 N.E.2d 326, 341 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008). Here, the DCS caseworker testified the plan for the care and
treatment of the children is adoption. This is a satisfactory plan. See In re
A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 716, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
[27] We reverse a termination of parental rights “only upon a showing of ‘clear
error’—that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made.” Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232,
1235 (Ind. 1992). We find no such error here and therefore affirm the trial
court.
[28] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-755 | October 30, 2019 Page 14 of 14