MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Mar 17 2016, 8:31 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Adam G. Forrest Gregory F. Zoeller Andrew J. Sickmann Attorney General of Indiana Boston Bever Klinge Cross & Chidester Richmond, Indiana Robert J. Henke James D. Boyer Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- March 17, 2016 Child Relationship of: Court of Appeals Case No. 81A04-1508-JT-1117 C.B. & K.B. (Minor Children) Appeal from the Union Circuit and Court A.M. (Mother) & D.B. (Father) The Honorable Matthew R. Cox, Appellants-Respondents, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. v. 81C01-1412-JT-94 81C01-1412-JT-95 The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 1 of 15 Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary [1] A.M. (“Mother”) and D.B. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the
termination of their parental rights upon the petition of the Union County
Department of Child Services (“DCS”). We affirm.
Issues [2] Father presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the trial
court abused its discretion and denied Father due process by ordering him to
participate in the termination hearings via telephone, rather than transporting
him from the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”).
[3] Mother presents one issue with three sub-issues, which we restate as: whether
DCS established, by clear and convincing evidence, the requisite statutory
elements to support the termination decision.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 2 of 15 Facts and Procedural History [4] Mother has two children: K.B. and C.B. (collectively, “Children”). Father is
the father of C.B. only.1 Prior to DCS’s involvement, Children lived with
Mother, and Father did not regularly supervise or have contact with C.B.
[5] On August 2, 2013, DCS received a report that Mother had been arrested in
Butler County, Ohio, on charges of possession of heroin and tampering with
evidence. Mother bonded out a few days later. On August 19, 2013, DCS was
notified that five-year-old C.B. had run away from school. C.B. was found
hiding outside Mother’s residence, but neither parent could be located. Later
that day, Mother failed to pick up Children from school. DCS took Children
into custody and placed them in their maternal grandmother and step-
grandfather’s care. Mother later admitted that she was using heroin daily at
that time.
[6] DCS filed verified petitions alleging that Children were Children in Need of
Services (“CHINS”) because Mother failed to supervise Children, Mother’s
drug use was interfering with her ability to care for them, and, in the case of
C.B., Father could not be located. Children were adjudicated CHINS on
August 27, 2013, after Mother admitted to the allegations. On September 13,
1 K.B.’s father is deceased.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 3 of 15 2013, the court entered dispositional decrees as to Mother, ordering her to,
among other conditions, refrain from illegal drug use, successfully complete
inpatient substance abuse treatment, submit to random drug screens, attend all
scheduled visitations with Children, and participate in home-based services.
Father was eventually located in the Union County Jail, where he had been
confined since late November 2013 on charges of theft and burglary.
[7] Mother continued to use illegal drugs, failed to attend inpatient drug treatment,
was convicted in the possession/tampering case, accrued new criminal charges
of theft, was intermittently jailed, and in October 2014 was incarcerated in the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“the DRC”) after she was
found to have violated the terms of her probation. Father remained
incarcerated throughout 2014. On December 18, 2014, DCS filed verified
petitions to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights.
[8] Father filed a motion for transport, requesting that he be transported from the
Plainfield Correctional Facility (“PCF”) to Union County. His motion was
denied, and the court ordered that he participate via telephone. The trial court
held a fact-finding hearing on the petitions on March 3, 2015, while Father was
incarcerated and Mother was residing in a halfway house under the supervision
of the DRC. After DCS rested its case, the hearing was continued until May
12, 2015. By that time, Mother had been released and appeared in person.
Father’s second motion for transport was denied and he again appeared by
phone. On July 13, 2015, the trial court entered orders terminating Parents’
parental rights. Parents now appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 4 of 15 Discussion and Decision [9] Our standard of review is highly deferential in cases concerning the termination
of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). This
Court will not set aside the trial court’s judgment terminating a parent-child
relationship unless it is clearly erroneous. In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542, 544
(Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, but the
law provides for the termination of those rights when the parents are unable or
unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of
Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). The purpose of
terminating parental rights is not to punish parents, but to protect their children.
In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
Father’s Contentions
[10] We begin with Father’s contention that he was denied due process because the
trial court denied his motions for transport. “‘The Due Process Clause of the
U.S. Constitution and the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana
Constitution prohibit state action that deprives a person of life, liberty, or
property without a fair proceeding.’” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 916 (Ind.
2011) (quoting In re Paternity of M.G.S., 756 N.E.2d 990, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App.
2001), trans. denied). Thus when the State seeks to terminate the parent-child
relationship, it must do so in a way that meets the requirements of due process.
Id. at 917. The process due in a termination proceeding turns on the balancing
of three factors: (1) the private interests affected by the proceeding; (2) the risk
of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3) the countervailing Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 5 of 15 governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Id.
Although due process is not dependent on the underlying facts of the particular
case, the balancing test recognizes that due process is flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands. Id. (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
[11] Indiana courts have held that a parent has no absolute right to be present at a
termination hearing. Id. at 921. Whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to
attend a termination of parental rights hearing is within the sound discretion of
the trial court. Id. at 922. In exercising this discretion,
the trial court judge should balance the following factors: (1) The delay resulting from parental attendance; (2) the need for an early determination of the matter; (3) the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been pending; (4) the best interests of the child(ren) in reference to the parent’s physical attendance at the termination hearing; (5) the reasonable availability of the parent’s testimony through a means other than his or her attendance at the hearing; (6) the interests of the incarcerated parent in presenting his or her testimony in person rather than by alternate means; (7) the affect [sic] of the parent’s presence and personal participation in the proceedings upon the probability of his or her ultimate success on the merits; (8) the cost and inconvenience of transporting a parent from his or her place of incarceration to the courtroom; (9) any potential danger or security risk which may accompany the incarcerated parent’s transportation to or presence at the proceedings; (10) the inconvenience or detriment to parties or witnesses; and (11) any other relevant factors.
Id. at 922-23 (quoting State ex rel. Jeanette H. v. Pancake, 529 S.E.2d 865, 877-78
(W. Va. 2000)) (footnote omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 6 of 15 [12] Father argues that the court’s denials of his motions for transport were an abuse
of discretion because the court “offered no real perspective relating to the eleven
(11) factors to be balanced in exercising its discretion . . . .” (Appellant-Father’s
Br. 9.) However, the trial court acknowledged that it was exercising its
discretion in light of the test annunciated in C.G., specifically explaining that it
denied the motions “due to the logistics of transporting both parents from
prison[.]” (Tr. 17.) Father then seeks to distinguish C.G. because the parent in
that case was imprisoned in another state whereas Father was incarcerated in
Indiana. The test in C.G. mandates that a trial court take into consideration
“the cost and inconvenience of transporting a parent from his or her place of
incarceration to the courtroom[,]” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d at 923, and is not
limited to interstate transportation. As the trial court explained at the March 3,
2015 fact-finding hearing, the court’s previous efforts to transport Father from
PCF for the initial hearing imposed “a burden on the Sheriff’s Department to
make that happen.” (Tr. 17.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion when
it considered, based on prior experience, the difficulty of transporting Father
nearly 100 miles across the State.
[13] Furthermore, as in C.G., the court implemented several procedural safeguards
to protect Father’s due process rights. Father was represented by counsel
throughout the case. At the hearings, the court repeatedly asked if Father could
hear and several times paused to explain the courtroom proceedings to Father.
When Father had difficulty hearing due to a poor phone connection on March
3, the court made adjustments and reminded counsel and witnesses to move
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 7 of 15 closer to the phone and speak more loudly. On Parents’ motions, the trial was
bifurcated prior to Parents presenting their defenses. As the court observed, this
gave Parents’ counsel “additional time to talk with their clients” and obtain
evidence from the DOC. (Tr. 81.)
[14] In light of the trial court’s consideration of the test annunciated in C.G. and the
safeguards employed, we cannot say the trial court denied Father due process
by denying his motions for transport and ordering him to appear via phone.
Mother’s Contentions
[15] We turn now to Mother’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to
support the termination order. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a judgment of involuntary termination of a parent-child relationship,
we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.
A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d at 544. We consider only the evidence that supports the
judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. When, as
here, a judgment contains specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon, we
apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147. First, we
determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, we
determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. A judgment is
clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the court’s conclusions or the
conclusions do not support the judgment. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 8 of 15 [16] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) sets out the elements that DCS must allege
and prove by clear and convincing evidence in order to terminate a parent-child
relationship:
(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.
(ii) A court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-5.6 that reasonable efforts for family preservation or reunification are not required, including a description of the court’s finding, the date of the finding, and the manner in which the finding was made.
(iii) The child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child;
(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 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 9 of 15 (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.
If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described above are true, the
court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).
[17] Mother does not challenge the court’s determinations under Indiana Code
section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A), but raises challenges under Sections (b)(2)(B), (C),
and (D). We begin with Section (b)(2)(B), where Mother raises objections
under both subsections (i) and (ii). Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the
disjunctive, and therefore the court need only find that one of the three
requirements of Section (b)(2)(B) has been established by clear and convincing
evidence. See L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 209. Because we find it dispositive under the
facts of this case, we review only whether DCS established, by clear and
convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions
that resulted Children’s removal will not be remedied.2 See I.C. § 31-35-2-
4(b)(2)(B)(i).
2 Although neither Mother nor the State advance arguments as to subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii) (two separate CHINS adjudications), there is evidence to suggest that the “relaxed” burden of proof established by subsection (iii) was met here. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1290 (Ind. 2014) (observing “a CHINS finding can relax the State’s burden for terminating parental rights” because under subsection (iii), the State may terminate parental rights if a child has been adjudicated CHINS on two prior occasions without proving the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 10 of 15 [18] We engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether the conditions that led
to Children’s placement outside of Mother’s home likely will not be remedied.
In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). First, we ascertain what
conditions led to their placement outside the home, and second, we determine
whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be
remedied. Id. In making these decisions, a trial court must judge a parent’s
fitness to care for his or her child at the time of the termination hearing, taking
into consideration evidence of changed conditions. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636,
643 (Ind. 2014). However, the court must balance any recent improvements
against a parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a
substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. “We entrust that
delicate balance to the trial court, which has discretion to weigh a parent’s prior
history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination.” Id.
[19] Mother first challenges the court’s finding that she failed to complete substance
abuse treatment, arguing that the “evidence presented at the fact-finding
hearing directly contradicts this finding.” (Appellant-Mother’s Br. 14.) Mother
points to her testimony that she participated in several programs and counseling
while residing in a halfway house under the supervision of the DRC. However,
elements of subsections (b)(2)(B)(i) or (ii)). At the hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of “previous CHINS cases involving this family.” (Tr. 23.) Then, in each termination order, the trial court found “Child was previously adjudicated a Child in Need of Services in June 2010 in a case that closed in January 2012[.]” (Mother’s App. 25, 65.) Mother does not challenge these findings. However, as DCS observes in a footnote, the documents concerning these cases are not in the appellate record. This hampers our review of the issue, and we accordingly address the arguments related to subsection (b)(2)(B)(i).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 11 of 15 her testimony does not establish that she completed any substance abuse
treatment or other program, as opposed to simply being released at the end of
her sentence. She also testified she did not attend the DRC’s intensive drug
program “because they have a waiting list and the short time that I was there I
never made it in.” (Tr. 99.) The court’s finding that Mother did not complete
substance abuse treatment was not clearly erroneous.
[20] Noting her sobriety during incarceration in the DRC, Mother next argues that
the “trial court should not simply presume that the conditions that led to the
removal of [her] children would not be remedied because she once suffered
from drug addiction.” (Appellant-Mother’s Br. 13.) DCS first became involved
with Mother and Children in 2010 due to Mother’s drug use. Children then
were removed from Mother’s home in 2013 and adjudicated CHINS after
Mother admitted her daily drug use was interfering with her ability to care for
Children. After Children were removed, Mother continued to use heroin
regularly and refused inpatient drug abuse treatment. Mother did not
participate in other services offered by DCS and did not gain or maintain stable
employment or housing. Mother’s visitation with Children remained
supervised because she appeared to be under the influence of drugs during some
of the visits. Mother completely stopped visiting Children in December 2013.
Mother was jailed sporadically in 2014 and continuously incarcerated in Ohio
from September 2014 until her release from the halfway house in April 2015.
[21] Although the court observed that “Mother’s recent release from incarceration
raises the possibility that she might be able to provide a suitable home to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 12 of 15 children given enough time” (Mother’s App. 28, 67), the trial court had
discretion to weigh Mother’s “cycle of incarceration and relapse into substance
abuse” (Mother’s App. 26, 66) and “historic inability to provide a suitable
environment for her children” (Mother’s App. 28, 68) more heavily than any
efforts made shortly before termination. See E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. The trial
court’s finding that there was reasonable probability the conditions that resulted
in Children’s removal from Mother’s home would not be remedied was not
clearly erroneous.
[22] Mother next contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial
court’s conclusion that termination is in Children’s best interests. See I.C. § 31-
35-2-4(b)(2)(C).3 In determining the best interests of a child, the trial court must
look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the
evidence. In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 289-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), reh’g denied.
In doing so, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the
child. Id. at 290. The trial court need not wait until a child is harmed
irreversibly before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Further, a
parent’s historical and current inability to provide a suitable environment
supports finding termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests. Id.
3 The State contends that Mother “does not develop an argument challenging [the court’s ‘best interests’ conclusion] in her brief” (Appellee’s Br. 28), presumes Mother waived the issue, and presents no arguments in response. Although Mother intertwines her Section (b)(2)(C) argument regarding best interest with her subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) argument concerning the threat to Children’s well-being, Mother cites the appropriate standard on best interests and presents related argument. Accordingly, we address Mother’s contentions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 13 of 15 [23] Mother first challenges one of the court’s best interests findings: that Mother
was unemployed “and in fact left employment because she ‘didn’t like it.’”
(Mother’s App. 28, 68.) At trial, Mother testified she obtained employment
while at the halfway house, but did not stay there “[b]ecause I don’t know
anybody up there and I…I just…I didn’t want to. I don’t like Cincinnati.” (Tr.
121.) Since returning to Indiana, Mother had not obtained employment.
Where Mother testified she voluntarily left employment in a city she disliked,
the court’s finding regarding her employment status was not clearly erroneous.
[24] Mother next argues there was insufficient evidence that termination was in
Children’s best interest because K.B.’s Court-Appointed Special Advocate
(“CASA”) advocated for guardianship, rather than adoption, as being in K.B.’s
best interests. CASA also submitted a report summarizing the negative
emotional impact the termination proceedings had on then twelve-year-old
K.B. Mother argues the “trial court should have provided greater weight to
CASA’s report and testimony.” (Appellant-Mother’s Br. 17.) However, this
argument is a blatant request to reweigh the evidence, which this Court will not
do. See A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d at 544. In light of the totality of the evidence
discussed above regarding Mother’s historical and current inability to provide
for Children, the trial court’s finding that termination was in Children’s best
interests was not clearly erroneous.
[25] Lastly, Mother argues that DCS did not present a satisfactory plan for the care
and treatment of Children. See I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(D). DCS’s plan for
Children was adoption by maternal grandmother. Mother argues the plan is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 14 of 15 insufficient because CASA disagreed with adoption for K.B., instead
advocating for guardianship. However, under subsection (D), a plan for the
care and treatment of a child “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.” In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 268 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004), trans. denied. DCS’s plan to place Children with grandmother, with
whom they have lived since removal from Mother’s home, was satisfactory.
Conclusion [26] The trial court did not deny Father due process by denying Father’s motions for
transport and ordering Father to appear by telephone. In addition, DCS
established, by clear and convincing evidence, the requisite elements of Indiana
Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2). Accordingly, the court’s judgment of involuntary
termination of the parent-child relationship was not clearly erroneous.
[27] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 81A04-1508-JT-1117 | March 17, 2016 Page 15 of 15