In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.D-C., Kag.D., Kan.D., Kai.D., Ko.D. H.C. (Mother) and B.D. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 24 2020, 9:19 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
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Samuel J. Sendrow
Certified Legal Intern
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination August 24, 2020
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of: K.D-C., Kag.D., Kan.D., 20A-JT-633
Kai.D., Ko.D. (Minor Children); Appeal from the Jennings Circuit
H.C. (Mother) and B.D. Court
(Father), The Honorable Jon W. Webster,
Judge
Appellants-Respondents,
Trial Court Cause Nos.
v. 40C01-1909-JT-37
40C01-1909-JT-38
40C01-1909-JT-39
Indiana Department of Child 40C01-1909-JT-40
Services, 40C01-1909-JT-41
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 1 of 18
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] H.C. (“Mother”) and B.D. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the
juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights over their minor children:
K.D.-C., born September 11, 2011; Kag.D., born November 29, 2012; Kan.D.,
born May 30, 2014; Kai.D., born June 9, 2015; and Ko.D., born August 6, 2016
(collectively, the “Children”). Parents raise one issue for our review, namely
whether the juvenile court clearly erred when it terminated their parental rights.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother gave birth to Parents’ sixth child, A.C., on September 28, 2017. A.C.
was born prematurely, and she had “a chronic lung issue,” which caused her to
remain in the hospital for several months following her birth. Tr. at 51. In
January 2018, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received
reports that Parents were not visiting A.C. in the hospital and that volunteers
would have to hold A.C. because she received “such little stimulation.” Id. at
215. DCS also received information that, when Mother would visit A.C.,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 2 of 18
“there was a smell of odors,” including animal feces and animal urine. Id. at
51.
[3] Due to A.C.’s health issues, the hospital would not release her to Parents’ care
without a home check. Parents did not cooperate, so DCS filed a motion to
compel Parents to allow DCS to visit the home, which motion the juvenile
court granted. DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Johnna Badger and law
enforcement officers then visited Parents’ home, where they resided with the
Children. FCM Badger had “concerns” about the home environment because
there was “animal feces throughout the home, including on the walls” and
because there was a smell of ammonia that was so strong that officers and DCS
employees “had to step out of the home a couple times.” Id. at 52. FCM
Badger also noticed a “mold buildup” in the bathroom and a lack of food in the
house. Id. When FCM Badger spoke to Mother about the condition of the
home, Mother “reported that she felt that the home was sanitary” and that she
“cleaned daily.” Id. at 53.
[4] Due to the condition of the home, FCM Badger removed the Children from the
home. 1 FCM Badger and other DCS employees then began to clean off the
Children because they had animal feces on their feet. Once the Children were
clean, DCS employees noticed bruising on the Children. Accordingly, FCM
1
It is not clear from the record when A.C. was released from the hospital or whether she was initially
released into Parents’ care. However, the record indicates that A.C. was ultimately placed in foster care.
A.C. died during the underlying CHINS proceedings while in foster care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 18
Badger took the Children to the hospital to be evaluated. Medical professionals
believed that the bruising was “abnormal,” and there was a “concern” that the
bruises were “inflicted.” Id. at 60. Two of the older children later made
statements indicating that Parents had injured them.
[5] On March 7, DCS filed petitions alleging that the Children were Children in
Need of Services (“CHINS”) based on the condition of the home and the
violence toward the Children. The juvenile court then held a hearing at which
Parents admitted the allegations in the CHINS petitions. Accordingly, the
court adjudicated the Children to be CHINS. Thereafter, the court entered its
dispositional decree and ordered Parents to participate in services.
[6] On September 11, 2019, DCS filed petitions to termination Parents’ parental
rights over the Children. Following a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court
entered the following findings and conclusions:
There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted
in the [C]hildren’s removal or the reasons for placement outside
the [P]arents’ home will not be remedied, and that the
continuation of the parent-child relationship[s] poses a threat to
the well-being of the [C]hildren, because:
* * *
8. On or about January 18, 2018, [DCS] received a report
alleging that [A.C.] (younger sibling of [the Children]) was the
victim of child abuse or neglect with both [P]arents as the
perpetrators. Specifically, it was alleged that [A.C.], an infant,
had been in the hospital since birth (September 28, 2017) due to
severe medical needs. The hospital had concerns that they were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 4 of 18
unable to contact Parents and were unable to release [A.C.] until
a home check could be completed. Additional concerns included
hospital staff noting a strong odor on the items and clothing
[P]arents brought in from home.
* * *
11. On March 2, 2018, [FCM] Badger visited the home with
[FCM] Tonya Luviano and law enforcement personnel to
execute the Motion to Compel.
12. Upon entering the home, FCM[] Badger observed the home
to be filthy. Specifically, she observed feces throughout the
home, trash, and a puzzling lack of furniture for a family of eight.
A toilet was filled with human feces, apparently not flushed in
weeks. She described the smell of the home to be one of animal
urine, an odor so strong that she and the grown men from law
enforcement had to repeatedly excuse themselves to step outside
to catch their breath. Father later testified that he had not
noticed a smell at all at this time.
* * *
14. When questioned about the home conditions on March 2,
2018, Mother stated that she cleaned and sanitized the home
daily and did not see any concerns. Mother testified on
November 19, 2019 that she still did not understand why DCS
had gotten involved due to concerns over home conditions. She
testified that they were “handling things on their own.”
* * *
19. Shortly after the detention, DCS learned of additional
allegations of physical abuse against the [C]hildren. Some of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 5 of 18
children were brought to Riley to have their bruising examined,
and Riley physicians determined that the bruising was abnormal
and suspicious, likely inflicted. [K.D.-C.] and [Kag.D.] also
made corroborating statements that they had been injured by
their parents. . . .
20. In March of 2018, [P]arents were referred for home-based
case work through National Youth Advocate Program
(“NYAP”), a referral which remains active at today’s date.
* * *
28. It should be noted that the family has extensive DCS history
prior to the current case. Parents have had five different
substantiations of child abuse and/or neglect in the last five years
in Indiana beginning in 2014. Many were for similar issues of
home conditions and hygiene of the children. It is clear that the
issues leading to the current removal of the children were not
isolated, but rather a chronic pattern of severe neglect.
* * *
34. On September 6, 2018 the Court issued a dispositional order
wherein [P]arents were ordered to participate in services. In
pertinent part, [P]arents were ordered to maintain suitable safe,
and stable housing; to keep the family residence in a manner that
is structurally sound, sanitary, clean, free from clutter, and safe
for the [C]hildren; to enroll in any programs recommended by
the team and participate in those programs; to secure and
maintain a legal and stable source of income; and to demonstrate
an ability to appropriately parent and supervise the [C]hildren.
35. Both parents were recommended for Mental Health
Assessments. Both parents completed this assessment at Adult
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 6 of 18
and Child Mental Health Center, Inc. on September 18,
2018. . . .
36. Parents were referred for individual therapy at Adult &
Child. Mother completed an intake in September of 2018. She
completed three therapy sessions in October of 2018. Father
completed an intake in September of 2018 but never attended a
single therapy session.
* * *
39. FCM [Emily] Ooms visited the [P]arents in their new
apartment in Indianapolis for the first time on December 10,
2018. Parents had left the filthy home in North Vernon where
the [C]hildren were removed from and moved to Indianapolis
several months after removal. At that home visit, FCM Ooms
noted no concerns other than a conspicuous lack of furniture.
This is a concern that was echoed by other witnesses including
visit supervisors and Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) Jesseka
Gibson—that the parents had hardly any furniture in the home
and only had one bed for the five children. The [P]arents do
have multiple expensive looking gaming systems in the home.
* * *
41. Father was referred and court ordered to complete Anger
Management due to the violence in the home disclosed by the
[C]hildren. In June of 2019, Father completed an intake for the
Anger Management program at Life Recovery Associates LLC.
The recommendations were for Father to complete a 26-week
program. Father attended 4 out of 26 scheduled sessions. He
was discharged as unsuccessful from the program, though he
could restart the curriculum at any time. He has not done so,
despite testifying that he had learned some valuable information
from the few sessions he did attend. Father testified that he does
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 7 of 18
not believe he needs any domestic violence services despite the
statements of his children that they had been physically abused
by him.
42. FCM Ooms visited the [P]arents’ home on July 19, 2019 to
inspect the home conditions. She noted concerns such as an
extremely foul odor in the home that smelled like cat urine, dirty
dishes and food that had been sitting out for days from the
[C]hildren’s last visit, a litter box full of cat feces, and black mold
in the toilet.
43. On October 16, 2019, FCM Ooms visited the home
again. . . . The odor in the home had improved, which FCM
Ooms learned was not because [P]arents had done anything
proactive to address it, but rather because one of the cats had run
away. Many of the other concerns were still present, such as
dirty dishes and old food sitting out and the continued issue of
black mold in the toilets.
* * *
45. Almost two years into this case, [P]arents are still unable to
address the simplest concerns of keeping a home sanitary for
children, such as cleaning toilets periodically and addressing foul
odors.
* * *
50. In the year and a half that this case has been open, Mother
has attended three therapy sessions and Father has attended zero
therapy sessions, despite two assessments indicating that therapy
was very important for the [P]arents and despite the repeated
urging of both DCS and GAL Gibson. Neither parent has been
discharged successfully from any mental health services.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 8 of 18
* * *
55. Multiple witnesses expressed concern regarding home
conditions at visitations with the [C]hildren. The home is not
consistently safe and sanitary.
* * *
58. Visit supervisors testified that the conditions in the home
where visits were taking place were also concerning. Specifically,
the bathroom is not clean, there are often old dirty dishes out
from the previous visit, there is a strong odor in the home of both
cat urine and body odor, and there is not sufficient furniture in
the home for the [C]hildren.
* * *
62. At one visit, Father injured [K.D.-C.] by twisting his arm,
causing [K.D.-C.] to require medical treatment for a sprain. This
presents a major concern as one of the main issues in this case
was the physical abuse endured by the [C]hildren prior to
removal. If Father injures children in a fully supervised visit[], it
is alarming to consider what might happen behind closed doors if
these children were to return to [P]arents’ care.
* * *
65. Rachel Otto, visit supervisor, testified similarly that she was
never able to recommend that visits transition to unsupervised.
In fact, she requested a decrease in visitation time due to the
negative impact visits were having on the [C]hildren.
* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 9 of 18
84. The two fundamental issues at the beginning of this case
were the conditions of the home/instability and the physical
abuse endured by the [C]hildren. Neither parent has made any
meaningful progress in addressing either of these issues. Parents’
home still shows major concerns regarding its cleanliness, and
that is without five presumably messy young children residing
there. Major parenting concerns have been observed at
supervised visits that have not improved. Parents have utterly
failed to address their underlying mental health concerns and
parenting deficits, impairing their ability to safely and
appropriately parent their children.
85. It is unlikely that the conditions that led to the removal of the
[C]hildren from their [P]arents’ care will be remedied.
* * *
94. The [C]hildren are placed with Mother’s cousin and his
fiancé[e]. All five children are placed together, an impressive feat
for such a large group of siblings. The relative placements are
also licensed foster parents who have received training in
providing care to victims of abuse and neglect like these children.
The [C]hildren are thriving in their current placement. DCS has
no concerns about the relatives’ ability to take care of the
[C]hildren. The relative testified that he and his fiancé[e] intend
to adopt the [C]hildren if parental rights are terminated.
* * *
Termination is in the best interests of the children in that:
1. Johanna Maulin, therapist with NYAP testified that she sees
[Kan.D.] for therapy weekly. Ms. Maulin testified that [Kan.D.]
has issues with expressing emotions, night terrors, and having
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 10 of 18
accidents in her pants at school, but that these issues have greatly
improved the longer [Kan.D.] has been experiencing stability
with her current relative placement. She observes that [Kan.D.]
is extremely well-bonded with her foster parents and that she is
safe and secure in that setting.
2. [Kan.D.] and the other four children have thrived in the care
of their relative as, for perhaps the first time in their young lives,
the [C]hildren are in a safe, stable, and structured home.
* * *
7. Neither parent has made any notable improvements in
parenting skills either, despite almost two years of fully
supervised visits that included education and feedback on their
significant parenting deficits.
8. Parents are overall not receptive to making any changes
because they do not believe that they have done anything wrong
in the first place.
9. Parents’ behavior in this case can be summarized in a single
word: unmotivated. Parents exhibit no level of urgency in
participating in any concrete activity that would get them closer
to reunifying with their children. Parents have apparently
inexhaustible amounts of excuses for their lack of compliance. It
is unlikely that this behavior will be remedied.
10. Comparing the photographs of the [C]hildren at the time of
removal (Exhibits 13-28) with the photographs included on
GAL’s Termination Report speaks volumes as to the horrible
physical condition of the [C]hildren at that time and the
improvements made since then. Evidence would indicate that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 11 of 18
similar improvements have been made in the [C]hildren’s
emotional states.
11. Parents have not enhanced their ability to safely and
appropriately parent their children.
12. GAL Gibson and FCM Ooms do not believe it would be in
the [C]hildren’s best interest to give [P]arents more time to
complete services and attempt to reunify with their children.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 138-152 (emphases in original). The trial court also
concluded that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the
Children. Accordingly, the court terminated Parents’ parental rights. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Parents contends that the trial court erred when it terminated their parental
rights over the Children. We begin our review of this appeal by acknowledging
that “[t]he traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their
children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe Div. of Fam. & Child. (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d
73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), 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. Schultz v. Porter Cty. Off. of Fam. &
Child. (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Termination of a
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 12 of 18
should not be terminated solely because there is a better 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. at 836.
[8] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS
is required to allege and prove:
(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.
***
(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) (2020). DCS’s “burden of proof in termination of
parental rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” R.Y. v. Ind.
Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting
I.C. § 31-37-14-2).
[9] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cty. Off. of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 13 of 18
Fam. & Child. (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that
are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the trial
court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court’s
judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous.
Judy S. v. Noble Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[10] Here, in terminating Parents’ parental rights, the trial court entered specific
findings of fact and conclusions thereon. In general, when a trial court’s
judgment contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered
standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147
(Ind. 2005). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings
and, second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id.However, here, Parents do not specifically challenge any of the trial court’s
findings. As such, we must simply determine whether the unchallenged
findings support the court’s judgment. See J.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re
A.M.), 121 N.E.3d 556, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
[11] On appeal, Parents contend that the trial court clearly erred when it concluded
that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal from their care will
not be remedied and that termination of the parent-child relationships is in the
Children’s best interests. We address each argument in turn.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 14 of 18
Reasons for Removal from Parents’ Home
[12] Parents first contend that the trial court erred when it concluded that the
conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal from their care will not be
remedied. However, in addition to concluding that there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal will not
be remedied, the court also concluded “that continuation of the parent-child
relationship[s] poses a threat to the well-being of the [C]hildren[.]” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 138. But Parents do not challenge that conclusion. Because
Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, Parents’
failure to challenge the second prong means that they have waived our review
of the sufficiency of the findings to support the court’s conclusion on either
prong.
[13] Waiver notwithstanding, the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that
the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal and the reasons for
placement outside of Parent’s home will not be remedied. To determine
whether there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for the Children’s
removal will not be remedied, the trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to
care for the Children at the time of the termination hearing, taking into
consideration evidence of changed conditions. See E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child
Servs. (In re E.M.), 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). However, the court must also
“evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine the probability
of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” Moore v. Jasper Cty. Dep’t of Child
Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotations and citations
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 15 of 18
omitted). Pursuant to this rule, courts have properly considered evidence of a
parent’s prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect,
failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and employment. Id.Moreover, DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it
need establish only that there is a reasonable probability the parent’s behavior
will not change. Id.[14] Here, the trial court found, and Parents do not dispute, that DCS removed the
Children because the home was “filthy.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 139.
Indeed, there was animal feces “throughout the home”; a toilet “was filled with
human feces, apparently not flushed in weeks”; and there was a smell of animal
urine so strong that grown men had to repeatedly excuse themselves to step
outside. Id. The trial court also found that, following the removal of the
Children, DCS observed bruising on some of the Children and that two of the
Children “made corroborating statements that they had been injured by”
Parents. Id. at 140. Accordingly, the court found that the “two fundamental
issues” in this case were the conditions of the home and the physical abuse of
the Children by Parents.
[15] However, the court also found that Parents have not “made any meaningful
progress in addressing either of these issues.” Id. at 149. Specifically, the court
found that, almost two years into the case, the home “still shows major
concerns regarding its cleanliness” and that “[m]ajor parenting concerns have
been observed at supervised visits that have not improved.” Id. Further, the
court found that Parents have not completed any service and that they have
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 16 of 18
“utterly failed to address their underlying mental health concerns and parenting
deficits, impairing their ability to safely and appropriately parent their
children.” Id. The court’s undisputed findings, coupled with the court’s
findings regarding Parents’ five prior substantiations for “similar issues of home
hygiene” dating back to 2014, support the trial court’s conclusion that the
reasons for the Children’s removal from Parents’ care will not be remedied.
Best Interests
[16] Parents also contend that the trial court erred when it concluded that the
termination of the parent-child relationships was in the Children’s best interests.
In determining what is in a child’s best interests, a juvenile court is required to
look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the
evidence. A.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010). A parent’s historical inability to provide “adequate housing,
stability, and supervision,” in addition to the parent’s current inability to do so,
supports finding termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the
child. Id.[17] As the trial court’s undisputed findings demonstrate, Parents have not shown
that they are capable of parenting the Children. Other than their compliance
with visitation, Parents did not complete their court-ordered services to address
the housing and violence issues. Indeed, the court found that Parents have not
“made any notable improvements in parenting skills, despite almost two years
of fully supervised visits that included education and feedback on their
significant parenting deficits.” Id. at 151. The court also found that all of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 17 of 18
Children are placed in one foster home, which is a pre-adoptive home, and that
they are thriving. And the court found that GAL Gibson and FCM Ooms “do
not believe it would in the [C]hildren’s best interest to give [P]arents more time
to complete services and attempt to reunify with their children.” Id. at 152.
Those findings support the court’s conclusion that termination of the parent-
child relationships is the Children’s best interests. We therefore affirm the
termination of Parents’ parental rights over the Children.
[18] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-633 | August 24, 2020 Page 18 of 18