MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 22 2015, 6:45 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Harold E. Amstutz Gregory F. Zoeller Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke Deputy Attorney General
James D. Boyer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination April 22, 2015 of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No. of: A.G., 79A02-1410-JT-701 Appeal from the Tippecanoe M.G., Superior Court
Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Faith Graham, Judge
v. Cause No. 79D03-1311-JT-62
Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner.
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 1 of 19 Statement of the Case [1] M.G. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights over her minor
child, A.G. (“Child”).1 Mother presents five issues for our review, which we
revise and restate as one issue, namely, whether the Indiana Department of
Child Services (“DCS”) presented sufficient evidence to support the termination
of her parental rights.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] Mother lives in Chicago, Illinois and suffers from schizoaffective disorder, for
which she is prescribed medication. However, around the beginning of June
2012, Mother ran out of medication, and, over the course of several weeks, her
mental health deteriorated rapidly. On June 3, Mother disappeared with Child
from her home in Chicago, which they shared with Child’s father, I.H.
(“Father”), and Mother and Child were missing for two days before returning
home. During the time she was missing, Mother had called Father to report
that she was lost. Around the same time, Mother also threw away all of the
food in the home2 because she believed the food was “bewitched.” Exh. 2.
1 Child’s father does not participate in this appeal. 2 Mother and Father, who have never been married, have since terminated their relationship.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 2 of 19 [4] On June 8, Mother again disappeared from her home in Chicago. Two days
later, on June 10, Mother contacted her sister, L.D.R., who lived in Tippecanoe
County but was visiting Chicago, and asked L.D.R. to take her and Child to
Tippecanoe County. Mother reported to L.D.R. that she needed to escape
Father’s domestic violence. Mother stayed with L.D.R. the night of June 10,
but, on the morning of June 11, Mother accused L.D.R. of stealing Child’s
clothes and fled the residence with Child. L.D.R. filed a missing-person’s
report for Mother. The Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department located
Mother and brought her and Child to a local women’s shelter.
[5] The next day, June 12, the Lafayette Police Department (“LPD”) received a
call from the women’s shelter, which reported that Mother was being
belligerent, aggressive, demanding, uncooperative, and verbally abusive to staff.
As a result, the women’s shelter had asked Mother to leave. Officers with LPD
responded to the shelter and, on their way, contacted Rosa Banuelos,3 an
assessment worker at DCS.
[6] When Banuelos arrived at the shelter, Mother refused to return to L.D.R.’s
home and lacked other accommodations in Tippecanoe County. Thus, Mother
requested money from Banuelos to return to Chicago. When Banuelos refused,
Mother requested that Banuelos call Mother’s godmother for money, but the
3 L.D.R. had also contacted Banuelos prior to contacting the LPD. In 2011, Banuelos had been involved in the dissolution of a guardianship over Mother’s other child, E.G, in which L.D.R. had been E.G.’s custodian.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 3 of 19 godmother could not help Mother. As a result, Mother became agitated and
afraid, and Banuelos determined that DCS needed to remove Child from
Mother’s care. To remove Child from Mother, officers had to physically
restrain Mother and “pr[y] her hands away from [Child].” Tr. at 22. LPD
officers did not arrest Mother but, instead, transported her to River Bend
Hospital, where she was involuntarily committed for treatment of her mental
illness. When these events unfolded, Mother’s other child, E.G., who was then
sixteen years old, was staying with a relative in Merrillville “to get away from
the stress of [Mother’s] home environment.” Id. at 28.
[7] As a result of these events, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child and E.G. 4
were children in need of services (“CHINS”), and, on July 24, the trial court
adjudicated Child a CHINS. Child was placed in the care of L.D.R., her
maternal aunt, for the duration of the CHINS proceeding. L.D.R. also had
received custody of E.G. in a 2002 CHINS proceeding, which arose as a result
of Mother’s deteriorated mental health. That CHINS proceeding concluded in
the creation of a guardianship and in the long-term placement of E.G. in
L.D.R.’s home. In 2011, however, Mother demonstrated stability to DCS, and
the guardianship was dissolved. Consequently, E.G. was placed back in
Mother’s care.
4 E.G turned eighteen years old before the final disposition in this case and is not subject to this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 4 of 19 [8] In August 2012, the trial court entered its participation decree, which ordered
Mother to complete a parenting assessment, parenting classes, case
management, a domestic violence assessment, and domestic violence classes;
maintain medication management and a treatment regimen, including
individual therapy; and participate in visitations. Mother did not begin services
and returned to Chicago. Soon thereafter, in September, Mother flew to
Mexico to care for her mother, who was ill. Mother stayed in Mexico 5 until
November and then returned to Chicago, where she began some, but not all, of
the ordered services. Mother began case management, medication
management,6 and visitation, all of which she attended consistently, with few
absences, for the remainder of her case. However, because Mother participated
in medication management in Chicago, DCS was unable to confirm that
Mother was actually complying with her treatment regimen, which included
taking her medication. DCS also did not have the opportunity to observe
Mother’s home.
[9] DCS refused to offer visitation in Chicago, so Mother consistently traveled to
Tippecanoe County to see Child, who continued to live with L.D.R. Mother
traveled to Tippecanoe County approximately every other week, staying two to
three days each time, and she would visit with Child several hours each day.
Aside from one instance where Mother, against DCS policy, let Child use her
5 According to Mother, she saw a psychiatrist while in Mexico. 6 The program Mother selected referred to medication management as “medication education.” Tr. at 55.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 5 of 19 phone to talk to Father, who never involved himself in the case, visitations went
well and were appropriate.
[10] For the majority of Mother’s case, Mother’s relationship with DCS, however,
was tumultuous. Her insistence on completing services in Chicago provided a
source of constant conflict, especially after Mother had refused services in Lake
County, which is only about six miles from Mom’s home in Chicago. Further,
Mother’s case manager, Taylor Fristoe, found Mother difficult to work with,
and her conversations with Mother frequently devolved into arguments because
Mother did not believe she needed the offered services. Consequently, in
October 2013, both DCS and Child’s court-appointed special advocate
(“CASA”) recommended the termination of Mother’s parental rights over Child
and the adoption of Child by L.D.R. as Child’s permanency plan.
[11] However, in late 2013, Mother’s attitude towards DCS changed markedly.
Mother began cooperating with providers, and she enrolled in the services that
she previously had refused. In addition to continuing her other services,
Mother begstarted individual therapy in December 2013, domestic violence
classes in January 2014, and parenting classes in March 2014. Mother’s
compliance persuaded Child’s CASA, in February, to recommend a
guardianship over Child in lieu of terminating Mother’s parental rights. DCS,
however, continued to recommend termination but was receptive to the idea of
a guardianship. All parties agreed that if Mother continued to control her
mental illness, she could be a fit parent. However, DCS expressed concern that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 6 of 19 Mother’s history established a pattern of conduct demonstrating her inability to
consistently tend to her mental health.
[12] The trial court held the termination hearing on March 14, 2014. At the hearing,
Mother interrupted the testimony of Fristoe and, despite repeated attempts by
the court to quiet her, Mother shouted, “She don’t have experience in her job.
She don’t have no kids.” Id. at 89. And, shortly thereafter during a recess from
the proceedings, Mother told Fristoe not to call her directly but to call her
lawyer if she needed to talk. On cross-examination, Mother explained that she
had made her comments because “[Fristoe] was lying a lot, [Fristoe] doesn’t
have experience with DCS cases, [and Fristoe] doesn’t have any children.” Id.
at 166. Later, on July 7, the trial court agreed to reopen evidence, and Mother
introduced exhibits that demonstrated her continuation of services, including
the completion of her domestic violence classes. Two days later, however, the
trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights over Child. In relevant part, and
in addition to the above facts, the trial court found and concluded:
FINDINGS OF FACT
***
16. Mother has generally maintained employment and reportedly maintained housing. Mother is currently residing in a two (2) bedroom apartment in Chicago that is reportedly appropriate for a child. . . . Mother reports she is current on rent and utilities and does not receive public assistance benefits. Mother does not have a driver’s license or a vehicle.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 7 of 19 19. Attempts to engage Mother i[n] ordered services have been problematic due to Mother becoming argumentative. Mother repeatedly declares she does not need services and does not understand why she is required to participate in services. Mother’s outburst during the termination proceeding is typical of interactions with Mother throughout the court of the CHINS case.
20. Since July 2012, Mother has attended only six (6) therapy appointments commencing in December 2013. Mother’s explanation for delaying therapy is an inability to locate a therapist because a medical card was required. Mother offers the same explanation for the delay in commencing a parenting class and domestic violence services. Mother failed to commence domestic violence classes until January 2014 and failed to commence parenting classes until March 2014. Mother missed therapy appointments as recently as February 2014.
21. Mother has demonstrated a long-term[,] historical inability to consistently maintain her mental health. Mother is diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder. Mother’s mental stability is the core issue and medication management is the priority service for Mother. Mother reports an understanding that she must remain treatment compliant to manage her mental health diagnosis and acknowledges her diagnosis is controlled if she takes her medication and attends therapy. Mother admits she stopped taking medication and ceased treatment prior to the onset of the [present] CHINS case.
24. CASA, Tom Newett, noted that Mother has participated in a treatment [regimen] for approximately three (3) months after approximately two (2) years of non-compliance. CASA has observed a recent change in Mother’s disposition, demeanor, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 8 of 19 approach to the CHINS case. The relationship between Mother and relative placement is also more conciliatory.
25. [Child] is developmentally and educationally on target. [Child] responds well behaviorally to stability and a clear routine in the relative home. The relationship between [Child] and the relatives appears to be parental in nature. The relative placement is readily willing to adopt [Child]. [Child] is bonded to [sic] and doing very well in the concurrent [sic] relative placement.
26. . . . Mother was unwilling to consent to a guardianship until the termination proceeding commenced. CASA believes guardianship may be in the best interests of [Child]. DCS, however, does not share that opinion given Mother’s history of struggling with her mental health diagnoses over the course of more than a dozen years.[7]
27. Mother’s historical mental instability has negatively affected both of her children. [Child] is only six (6) years of age and requires appropriate adult supervision to meet her needs. [Child] is thriving in a routine, structured environment knowing where she will sleep each night.
28. It is likely that Mother’s pattern of repetitive failure to maintain treatment compliance will continue. As such, Mother’s ongoing willingness to accept a guardianship without constant disruption is suspect. Anything less than a permanent adoption is likely to disrupt [Child’s] long-term stability and negatively impact [Child’s] need for permanency.
29. . . . [N]either [parent] has the ability to meet [Child’s] needs. All imaginable services have been offered and nothing is substantially different in today’s circumstances since the time of
7 Internal paragraph structure omitted.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 9 of 19 removal. To continue the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to [Child]. [Child] needs permanency now.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the removal of [Child] from [Mother’s] care or the reasons for continued placement outside [of] the home will not be remedied. [Mother] has yet to demonstrate the ability or willingness to make lasting changes from past behaviors. There is no reasonable probability that [Mother] will be able to maintain stability in order to care and provide adequately for [Child].
2. Continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of [Child]. [Child] needs stability in life. [Child] needs parents with whom [Child] can form a permanent and lasting bond to provide for [Child’s] emotional and psychological as well as physical well-being. [Child’s] well-being would be threatened by keeping [Child] in [a] parent-child relationship where [Mother’s] own choices and actions have made [her] unable to meet the needs of [Child].
3. DCS has a satisfactory plan of adoption for the care and treatment of [Child] following termination of parental rights. [Child] can be adopted and there is reason to believe an appropriate permanent home has or can be found for [Child] with a relative.
4. For the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of [Child] that the parental rights of [Mother] . . . be terminated.
Appellant’s App. at 20-24. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 10 of 19 Discussion and Decision [13] Mother contends that the trial court erred when it terminated her parental
rights. We begin our review of this issue 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 Family & Children (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 Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (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 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.
[14] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, in
relevant part, DCS is required to allege and prove:
(A) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree.
(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 11 of 19 (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). That statute provides that DCS need establish only
one of the requirements of section (b)(2)(B) before the trial court may terminate
parental rights. 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).
[15] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Ofc. of
Family & Children (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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 12 of 19 Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[16] Here, in terminating Mother’s parental rights, the trial court entered specific
findings of fact and conclusions thereon. When a trial court’s judgment
contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of
review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children, 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.
“Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to
support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98,
102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the trial court’s
decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
[17] Mother presents several arguments for our consideration. First, Mother
contends that the trial court erred when it determined that a reasonable
probability that the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal or the reasons
for continued placement outside of her home will not be remedied. Second,
Mother asserts that the trial court erred when it determined that the
continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being
Child. Third, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it determined that
termination was in the best interests of Child. Fourth and finally, Mother
contends that the trial erred when it determined that adoption was a satisfactory
permanency plan. In contrast to what the trial court concluded, Mother asserts
that the trial court terminated her parental rights solely because of her mental
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 13 of 19 illness. Moreover, she maintains, the creation of a guardianship was a more
appropriate permanency plan and, therefore, in Child’s best interests.
[18] Because Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b) is written in the disjunctive, “DCS
was required to allege and prove only one of the enumerated elements.” Karma
W. v. Marion Cnty Dept. of Child Servs. (In re B.J.), 879 N.E.2d 7, 20 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008). Thus, with respect to Mother’s arguments regarding Section 4(b),
we address only the trial court’s conclusion that the conditions that resulted in
Child’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents
will not be remedied. We then consider Mother’s contention that the trial court
terminated her parental rights solely because of her mental illness. And, finally,
we attend to Mother’s respective assertions that Child’s best interests are better
served by a guardianship, which she regards as a superior permanency plan.
Reasons for Removal
[19] Mother first contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the
conditions that resulted in the removal of Child from her care or the reasons for
the continued placement of Child outside of Mother’s home will not be
remedied. Here, “[w]e engage in a two-step analysis . . . . First, we must
ascertain what conditions led to their placement and retention in [relative] care.
Second, we determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those
conditions will not be remedied.” K.T.K v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., Dearborn
Cnty. Ofc., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). In reaching its conclusion, “the trial court must consider a parent’s
habitual pattern of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 14 of 19 probability of future neglect or deprivation.” Id. (citations and quotation marks
omitted). However, “it is within the province of the trial court, as the finder of
fact, to ignore or discredit evidence of remedial efforts made shortly before the
termination hearing.” Id. at 1234 (quoting McKinney v. Green Cnty. Ofc. of Family
& Children (In re C.M.), 675 N.E.2d 1134, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (quotation
marks omitted).
[20] Mother premises her argument on the fact that she had engaged in all court-
ordered services—and even completed domestic violence classes—by the time
the trial court terminated her parental rights. However, while Mother’s
statements are factually accurate, to accept Mother’s argument would require us
to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
[21] The evidence before the trial court, viewed in a manner most favorable to the
court’s judgment, demonstrated that, in 2002, E.G. was adjudicated a CHINS
as a result of Mother’s deteriorated mental health and, ultimately, placed into a
guardianship with L.D.R., which was dissolved in 2011. Less than a year later,
Mother’s mental health again deteriorated, which resulted in the current
CHINS action and the placement of Child and E.G. into L.D.R.’s care. Both
times Mother’s mental health regressed, the evidence established that Mother
had fled her home with Child and ultimately had ended up without shelter.
Further, after Child’s CHINS adjudication, Mother did not begin any of the
services ordered by the trial court for a number of months, and, even when she
did start services, she did not engage in all of them. Instead, Mother was
argumentative towards DCS until December 2013, and she had not complied
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 15 of 19 with all services until March 2014, just a few weeks before her termination
hearing. As a result, Child continued to remain outside of Mother’s care until
the termination hearing, at which Mother interrupted the testimony of Case
Manager Fristoe, criticized Fristoe’s work product, and told Fristoe that Fristoe
could no longer contact her directly.
[22] Thus, although it is true, as Mother points out, that Mother had complied with
her ordered services for several months before termination, the trial court was
free to give that evidence little, if any, weight. Id. Indeed, given the fact that
Mother’s mental health problems occasioned both CHINS proceedings, the
long period of time that Mother failed to comply with ordered services, and
Mother’s conduct at the termination hearing, the court could reasonably
conclude that the conditions that resulted in the removal of Child from
Mother’s care or the reasons for the continued placement of Child outside of
her home would not be remedied. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is not
clearly erroneous in this respect.
Mental Illness
[23] Despite the evidence chronicled above, Mother nevertheless contends that the
trial court terminated her parental rights solely because of her mental health,
which would make the court’s judgment clearly erroneous as a matter of law.
See, e.g., Tucker v. Shelby Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare (In re Tucker), 578 N.E.2d
774, 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. Mental illness is, however, a factor
that the trial court can consider. E.g., id. But the court did not terminate
Mother’s parental rights solely because of her mental illness. Instead, it Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 16 of 19 terminated Mother’s parental rights because of the impact Mother’s mental
illness has had on her ability to parent Child. Specifically, the trial court found
Mother did not “have the ability to meet [Child’s] needs,” which jeopardized
Child’s need for permanency and stability, thereby also threatening Child’s
well-being. Appellant’s App. at 23. Again, Mother asks that we reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do.
Child’s Best Interests and Child’s Permanency Plan
[24] Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) also requires that termination of the
parent-child relationship be in the best interests of the child, see I.C. § 31-35-2-
4(b)(2)(C). Mother’s argument regarding Child’s best interests substantially
overlaps with her argument regarding Child’s permanency plan, and, thus, we
address them together. In essence, Mother contends that the trial court erred
when it concluded that the relative adoption of Child by L.D.R. was a
satisfactory plan under Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(D) because “the
proposed Guardianship plan with the relative placement was a more
appropriate plan for [Child].” Appellant’s Br. at 20. Further, “DCS [sic]
ignores the long[-]term impact that adoption might have on [Child]. The DCS
[sic] ignores the evidence that not all adoptions end up ‘happily ever after.’” Id.
at 17. As such, Mother reasons that a guardianship, which Child’s CASA
recommended in lieu of adoption, was in Child’s best interests. We cannot
agree.
[25] As the phrasing of Mother’s permanency argument suggests, she requests that
we reweigh the evidence. Indeed, Mother cites no authority for her argument Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 17 of 19 on appeal, and she fails to support her argument with cogent reasoning. Thus,
Mother has waived this argument for appeal. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).
Waiver notwithstanding, however, the trial court’s conclusion that relative
adoption of Child by L.D.R. constituted a satisfactory permanency plan is not
clearly erroneous.
[26] As we have stated:
Indiana courts have traditionally held that for a plan to be satisfactory, for the purposes of the termination statute, it need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated. A DCS plan is satisfactory if the plan is to attempt to find suitable parents to adopt the children. In other words, there need not be a guarantee that a suitable adoption will take place, only that DCS will attempt to find a suitable adoptive parent. Accordingly, a plan is not unsatisfactory if DCS has not identified a specific family to adopt the children. Part of the reason for this is that it is within the authority of the adoption court, not the termination court, to determine whether an adoptive placement is appropriate.
In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (emphasis added; citations
and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. Here, DCS identified an adoptive
parent that the trial court found to be suitable. The trial court, therefore, did
not err when it approved the relative adoption of Child.
[27] Mother’s argument that a guardianship, not an adoption, was in Child’s best
interests also amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, but, again,
that prerogative belongs to the trial court. The court was “required to look
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 18 of 19 beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the evidence.
In so doing, the trial court must [have] subordinated the interests of the parent
to those of the child.” In re C.A., 15 N.E.3d 85, 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A trial
court should consider the recommendations of the case manager and court-
appointed advocate when it determines whether termination is in a child’s best
interest. See S.C. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re J.C.), 994 N.E.2d 278, 290
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “A parent’s historical inability to provide a suitable
environment, along with the parent’s current inability to do the same, supports
finding termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children.” Id.
[28] Mother asks us to give more weight to the CASA’s suggestion that a
guardianship would be in the best interests of Child than did the trial court. But
the trial court weighed the evidence and determined that termination and
adoption, as proposed by DCS, was in Child’s best interests. We have already
held that the trial court did not err when it concluded that the reasons that led
to Child’s removal from—and continued placement out of—Mother’s home
were not likely to be remedied and that a relative adoption was a satisfactory
permanency plan. Therefore, for all the reasons stated, this conclusion was not
clearly erroneous, and the trial court did not err when it terminated Mother’s
parental rights.
[29] Affirmed.
[30] Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1410-JT-701| April 22, 2015 Page 19 of 19