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.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 30, 2019
• Docket: 18A-JT-2228
• Status: Published

Opinion

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