In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.A. (Minor Child) D.E. (Mother) and A.A. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 21, 2020
• Docket: 20A-JT-136
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 21 2020, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT – ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE MOTHER Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Cristin L. Just Attorney General of Indiana Crown Point, Indiana David E. Corey ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT – Deputy Attorney General FATHER Indianapolis, Indiana Linda L. Harris Kentland, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination July 21, 2020 of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No. of R.A. (Minor Child); 20A-JT-136 D.E. (Mother) and A.A. Appeal from the Jasper Circuit (Father), Court The Honorable John D. Potter, Appellants-Respondents, Judge v. Trial Court Cause No. 37C01-1909-JT-138 Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] D.E. (“Mother”) and A.A. (“Father”) appeal the trial court’s termination of

their parental rights over R.A. (“Child”). Mother and Father raise three issues

for our review, which we restate as the following two issues:

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that the circumstances that resulted in Child’s removal from Mother’s and Father’s care would not be remedied.

2. Whether the court clearly erred when it concluded that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best interests.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In September of 2018, Mother gave birth to Child. Child was born addicted to

opiates and methamphetamine, and the Indiana Department of Child Services

(“DCS”) filed a petition to have Child declared a child in need of services

(“CHINS”). The trial court granted DCS’s petition, placed Child in Father’s

care, and ordered Mother to stay away from Child. However, Father promptly

returned Child to Mother. Thereafter, the court ordered Child removed from

Father’s care. Both parents later admitted that Child was a CHINS.

[4] Over the course of the next year, Mother and Father each repeatedly failed drug

tests, and they were in and out of jail. In September of 2019, DCS filed its

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6 petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights over Child. After a

fact-finding hearing, the trial court agreed and entered its order terminating

their rights. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision Standard of Review

[5] Mother and Father each appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental

rights over Child. The court’s judgment recites findings of fact and conclusions

thereon following an evidentiary hearing. As our Supreme Court has

explained, in such circumstances

[w]e affirm a trial court’s termination decision unless it is clearly erroneous; a termination decision is clearly erroneous when the court’s findings of fact do not support its legal conclusions, or when the legal conclusions do not support the ultimate decision. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the court’s judgment.

M.H. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re Ma.H.), 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019)

(citations omitted).

[6] “Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children—but this right is not

absolute.” Id. “When parents are unwilling to meet their parental

responsibilities, their parental rights may be terminated.” Id. at 45-46. To

terminate parental rights, Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2019) requires

DCS to demonstrate, as relevant here, that “[t]here is a reasonable probability

that the conditions that resulted in the [Child’s] removal or the reasons for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6 placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied” and that the

“termination is in the best interests of the [Child].”

Issue One: Whether the Conditions that Resulted in Child’s Removal will not be Remedied

[7] We first address the trial court’s conclusion that the conditions that resulted in

Child’s removal from Mother and from Father are not likely to be remedied. In

determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s placement outside the

parents’ care will not be remedied, a trial court is required to (1) ascertain what

conditions led to the child’s removal or placement and retention outside the

parents’ care; and (2) determine whether there is a reasonable probability that

those conditions will not be remedied. R.C. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re

K.T.K.), 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). Neither Mother nor Father

disputes the conditions that led to Child’s removal from their care, namely,

their drug and criminal histories.

[8] We thus turn to Mother’s argument that the court erred when it concluded that

there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied with

respect to her. According to Mother, the court erred in this determination

because she was “effectively abandoned” by DCS. Mother’s Br. at 13. That is,

Mother asserts that DCS “made no attempts” to contact her “or follow up on

the status of her progress” with substance abuse treatment. Id. at 11. Mother

continues by asserting that DCS’s failures resulted in the trial court merely

assuming that “the substance issue was persistent . . . .” Id. at 13.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [9] We cannot agree with Mother’s assessment. Mother does not dispute the trial

court’s findings that she did not provide DCS with a manner in which DCS

could verify Mother’s claims that she was participating in a substance abuse

program, that she did not complete any services she began, that she continued

to test positive for methamphetamine and heroin, that she has criminal charges

pending, and that she has not addressed her drug issues. Those findings

support the trial court’s judgment that the conditions that resulted in Child’s

removal are not likely to be remedied.

[10] Moreover, DCS did not abandon Mother. DCS developed a case plan for

Mother and monitored her progress, and DCS kept the trial court informed of

her progress, which documents were served on Mother. DCS attempted to

communicate with Mother, but Mother’s provided phone number did not

connect. DCS also informed Mother of local services in which she could

participate. And DCS offered drug screens to Mother. Mother’s argument that

DCS abandoned her is not correct, and the trial court’s conclusion that the

conditions that resulted in Child’s removal from Mother’s care is not clearly

erroneous.

[11] Father also asserts that the court erred when it concluded that the conditions

that resulted in Child’s removal from his care will not be remedied. But

Father’s argument on this issue amounts to the following assertions: that he

passed several, though not all, of his drug tests; that his incarceration interfered

with his ability to participate in services; that he did participate in some

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6 services; and that the court is simply speculating when it concluded that the

conditions that resulted in Child’s removal from Father will not be remedied.

[12] We reject Father’s argument, which is merely a request for this Court to

reweigh the evidence that was before the trial court. Indeed, Father’s own

argument acknowledges that he continued to fail drug tests and did not

complete his services toward reunification. We will not reweigh the evidence

on appeal, and we cannot say that the trial court’s judgment is clearly

Issue Two: Best Interests of the Child

[13] Mother separately asserts that the trial court erred when it terminated her

parental rights because the termination was not in Child’s best interests. But

Mother’s argument on this issue is the same as her argument on Issue One,

namely, that DCS’s purported abandonment of her rendered the trial court’s

ensuing termination order erroneous. For the reasons explained above, we

reject that argument. Further, the findings support the trial court’s conclusion

that the termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests.

We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6