Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.R. (Minor Child) and T.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 26, 2013
• Docket: 35A05-1208-JT-435
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 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:

MATTHEW G. GRANTHAM TODD A. WHITEHURST Bowers, Brewer, Garrett & Wiley, LLP Indiana Department of Child Services Huntington, Indiana Wabash, Indiana

ROBERT J. HENKE DCS Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana

Apr 26 2013, 8:25 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF THE ) PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF ) C.R. (Minor Child) and ) ) T.R. (Mother), ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 35A05-1208-JT-435 ) THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD ) SERVICES, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )

APPEAL FROM THE HUNTINGTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas M. Hakes, Judge Cause No. 35C01-1103-JT-5

April 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge T.R. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating her parental

rights to her child, C.R. Among other things, Mother contends that the trial court’s findings

are insufficient to support its judgment because they merely summarize the witnesses’

testimony and “do not reflect the trial court’s independent judgment as to what the specific

facts of her case were.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. She asserts that, “[a]t a minimum, this Court

should order a remand so that the trial court can submit appropriate findings of fact and

conclusions of law.” Id. The Indiana Department of Child Services agrees. Appellee’s Br.

at 12.

This Court has said,

A court or an administrative agency does not find something to be a fact by merely reciting that a witness testified to X, Y, or Z. Rather, the trier of fact must find that what the witness testified to is the fact. Additionally, the trier of fact must adopt the testimony of the witness before the “finding” may be considered a finding of fact.

In re Adoption of T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted). The

trial court failed to do so here. See, e.g., Appellant’s App. at 12 (“The Family Case Manager

(FCM), John Lane, testified to the following: ….”); id. at 13 (“The service provider from the

Bowen Center, Lynn Baker, testified to the following: ….”). Therefore, we reverse and

remand with instructions to enter specific factual findings and to provide an explanation as to

how the findings support the judgment. Moore v. Jasper Cnty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 894

N.E.2d 218, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Reversed and remanded.

ROBB, C.J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur.