In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.H. (Minor Child) B.H. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 29 2018, 9:51 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael P. DeArmitt Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination August 29, 2018
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of C.H. (Minor Child); 18A-JT-449
B.H. (Father), Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin,
v. Judge
The Honorable Heather M. Mollo,
Indiana Department of Child Magistrate
Services, Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1607-JT-3980
Appellee-Petitioner.
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 1 of 19
Statement of the Case
[1] B.H. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights over
his minor child, C.H. (“Child”). Father presents a single issue for our review,
namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the
termination of his parental rights. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Child was born to Father and E.A. (“Mother”) on March 3, 2011. On April 11,
2015, someone at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant contacted law enforcement to
report that Mother and her then-boyfriend, J.G., were intoxicated and that
Child and his half-sibling, C.G., were unsupervised at the restaurant. Officers,
in turn, contacted the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”), and
Laura Ledgerwood, an assessment worker for DCS, investigated. Mother and
J.G. admitted to being addicted to heroin. At that time, Father had not
exercised visitation with Child for two or three months. DCS removed Child
from Mother’s care on April 121 and filed a petition alleging that Child was a
child in need of services (“CHINS”). On June 9, the trial court found Child to
be a CHINS. After Father and Mother failed to fully comply with services, on
July 18, 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate their parental rights over Child.
1
Child stayed overnight with an aunt on April 11 after the incident at Chuck E. Cheese.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 19
[3] Following a hearing on December 9, 2016, and continued to January 27, 2017,
the trial court granted the petition on January 22, 2018.2 In support of its order
terminating Father and Mother’s parental rights, the trial court entered the
following relevant findings and conclusions:
5. On or about April 11, 2015, DCS investigated a report that the
Child was the victim of neglect. Owners of Chuck E. Cheese had
called police with concerns that Mother and her husband [sic]
were under the influence of an intoxicant and the Child was
unsupervised. (State’s Exhibit 7).
6. The Child was removed from Mother’s care on April 12, 2015
and has remained out of either parent’s home since that time.
7. A Verified Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) Petition was
filed on April 14, 2015. (State’s Exhibit 5).
8. On June 9, 2015, Mother and Father stipulated that the Child
is a Child In Need of Services. (State’s Exhibit 9).
9. In addition to the events at Chuck E. Cheese as noted in
Paragraph 5 above, Mother and Father also stipulated to the
following facts: In the course of police and DCS contact, Mother
admitted to being a heroin addict and receiving daily methadone
treatment. Mother submitted to a drug screen, which was
positive for Methamphetamine, Diazepam, and Methadone.
Mother and her husband [sic] acknowledged a history of
substance use. (State’s Exhibit 9).
2
There is no explanation for the one-year delay between the final hearing and the termination order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 3 of 19
10. On June 29, 2015, a Dispositional Hearing was held with
Mother. The essential terms required Mother to (1) continue
engaging in Methadone Treatment through Indianapolis
Treatment Center, (2) complete a substance abuse assessment,
and successfully complete any recommended treatment, (3)
complete home-based case management services to assist with
parenting, community resources, budgeting, and establishing a
home, (4) attend scheduled Visitations with the Child, and (5)
submit to random drug/alcohol screens within twenty-four
hours of said request. (State’s Exhibit 12.)
11. On June 29, 2015, a Dispositional Hearing was held with
Father. The essential terms required Father to (1) participate in
Fatherhood Engagement to aid in the bond between Father
and Child, (2) complete a substance abuse assessment, and
successfully complete any recommended treatment, (3) complete
a domestic Violence assessment, as recommended by the
treatment team, (4) participate in scheduled Visitations with the
Child, and (5) submit to random drug/alcohol screens within
twenty-four hours of said request. (State’s Exhibit 12).
12. To aid in the management of the case, Mother and Father
were also expected to (1) maintain weekly contact with the
Family Case Manager (FCM); (2) timely notify FCM of any
changes in circumstances or arrests; (3) sign releases for FCM to
monitor compliance; (4) enroll and participate in programs in a
timely manner; (4) allow access to the parent’s home and access
to the child; (5) maintain safe and suitable housing; and (6)
maintain a legal source of income. (State’s Exhibit 12).
B. FACTS RELATING TO CHILD’S CONTINUED
REMOVAL FROM PARENTS’ HOME AND CARE:
THREAT TO CHILD’S WELLBEING, CHILD’S BEST
INTEREST, & DCS PLAN FOR CARE AND TREATMENT
1. After formal removal of the Child on or about April 12, 2015,
the Child was never returned to the home or care of either parent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 4 of 19
***
3. Father continually questioned why he was asked to participate
in services, as he was the “non-offending” parent, and did not
believe he needed to participate in services. At the first Child and
Family Team meeting after the Child’s removal, the FCM
explained to Father that even non-offending parents might
benefit from services. Father was observed to smack the table
and stated, “Only God could judge him.” Father left the meeting
at that point. Father’s mother attended the Child and Family
Team Meeting and commented that Father struggled with mental
illness as way of explaining his conduct.
4. In May 2015, Father received referrals for a substance abuse
evaluation and Fatherhood Engagement services. Father had
failed to initiate either referral by the time of a Court Status
Hearing on July 27, 2015. It was also reported at the Status
Hearing that Father had failed to maintain contact with DCS and
had denied entry into his home on June 25, 2015. At the
conclusion of the Status Hearing, Father was given a deadline of
July 31, 2015 to contact Fatherhood Engagement and Adult and
Child for the substance abuse evaluation. (State’s Exhibit 14).
***
6. On August 26, 2015, Father completed the substance abuse
assessment with Adult and Child.
7. Siobhan Nelson of Adult and Child found Father to be
irritable and hostile during his substance abuse assessment, and
she questioned the veracity of Father’s responses. Father
displayed anger at having to answer questions and considered the
questions beneath him. He repeatedly expressed that the
evaluation was a waste of time. Ms. Nelson recommended that
Father receive services to address anger management and
parenting, as well as complete a psychological evaluation.
(State’s Exhibit 36).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 5 of 19
8. By September 2015, Father made contact with Fatherhood
Engagement. For the first few months, it was hard for the case
manager to establish goals with Father. They initially chose to
focus on Father moving forward on independent living. Father
was living with his mother at the time and receiving SSI benefits.
Regular contact though was lacking. He attended two out of
three appointments in October and kept no appointments in
November of 2015. The referral was scheduled to close for lack
of participation but the treatment team was in agreement that the
service should continue to further the father son relationship. By
November 2015, the Child had been placed with paternal
grandmother, as more fully discussed below. With Father in the
same home, it was agreed that Father’s referral would remain
open. (State’s Exhibits 15 & 16).
9. In December 2015, Father participated in two appointments
with Fatherhood Engagement. Some of the work focused on
Father’s goals of compliance with DCS and all service providers.
Father continued to express anger, frustration, and distrust.
Attempts were made to redirect Father. (State’s Exhibit 28).
10. In January 2016, Father participated with Fatherhood
Engagement on January 6, and January 12. Father canceled an
appointment for January 14, 2016 and the case manager
cancelled the next appointment for January 20, 2016. The
caseworker made multiple attempts to schedule an appointment
with Father for January 26, 2016, without success. The report
for January concluded that Father’s progress was minimal due to
lack of motivation and follow-through. (State’s Exhibit 29).
11. Father also received a referral for anger management in
September 2015. At the time of the December 22, 2015 Court
Status Hearing, he had yet to initiate contact with the provider.
There were continuing signs that anger management would
benefit Father. In addition to the hostility displayed early on in
the case, as outlined above, the FCM reported at the December
Status Hearing that communication with Father was difficult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 6 of 19
She cited a home visit in which Father refused to stay. (State’s
Exhibit 16).
12. In October 2015, Father received the referral for a
psychological evaluation with Dr. Linda McIntire of Shelby
Psychological Services. Despite several attempts to make contact
with Father, Father failed to schedule an appointment. Father,
however, reported to FCM that he had a scheduled appointment
in December 2015. Father did not have any scheduled
appointments in December 2015 with Shelby Psychological
Services.
***
14. The Department of Child Services filed a Petition for
Parental Participation as to Mother and Father on January 21,
2016. (State’s Exhibit 18.)
***
16. On February 8, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the
Department’s Petition for Parental Participation, and ordered
Father to make the Child available to service providers to allow
sibling Visits, to complete an intake assessment for anger
management, complete a psychological evaluation through Dr.
Linda McIntire of Shelby Psychological, participate in supervised
visitations, and participate in Fatherhood Engagement. Father
was given a twenty-four (24) hour deadline to contact Shelby
Psychological, the Visitation supervisor, and Fatherhood
Engagement. (State’s Exhibit 21).
17. Fatherhood Engagement was also willing to take a fresh
approach with Father in February 2016 in an effort to gain
greater compliance. The case manager and Father agreed to
focus exclusively on parenting skills and relationship building
with the Child. The new focus was expected to start March 1,
2016. (State’s Exhibit 30).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 7 of 19
18. Father kept all four scheduled appointments with
Fatherhood Engagement in March 2016. He was much more
engaged with the focus on the Child rather than Father’s
individual issues of responsibilities, independence and self-care.
(State’s Exhibit 31).
19. At the Permanency Hearing for the Child on April 12, 2016,
Mother and Father presented a bleak outlook that reunification
could be achieved. . . .
20. Father’s circumstances were equally bleak. He had not
completed the necessary services ordered in the Dispositional
Decree and Parental Participation Order. The psychological
evaluation had yet to be completed. The need for anger
management continued to be relevant. The FCM had two
additional encounters with Father that she perceived to be
hostile. The Court’s findings from the hearing specifically noted
“It’s to the point where [Father]’s persistent questioning as to
why he has requirements asked of him and his clear displeasure
with the assigned family case manager has stalled any progress
by him in demonstrating that he can be a permanency plan for
his son.” (State’s Exhibit 24).
21. Father completed the psychological evaluation on May 31,
2016. Father was given the following diagnoses: borderline
intellectual functioning and unspecified personality disorder,
with narcissistic and antisocial features. Dr. McIntire
recommended that Father complete anger management, engage
in case management to encourage independence and self-
responsibility, engage in a parenting curriculum, and desist the
use of Xanax, as it is a highly addictive drug and Father does not
have anxiety. Dr. McIntire concluded that Father would be
unable to care for a child by himself with his current behavioral
issues. (State’s Exhibit 46).
22. In particular, Dr. McIntire noted:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 8 of 19
Relative to parenting, his psychological testing is not promising.
His characterological disorder makes him a poor candidate to
parent, due to his self-focus, immaturity, impulsive and
aggressive tendencies, and lack of empathy. As already noted,
his Borderline Intellectual Functioning is a serious barrier to
independent parenting, and the combination of his two diagnoses
paints a grim prognosis, as his personality problems preclude him
from asking for feedback or assistance in admitting his
limitations. His CAPI score could not be determined due to
his very defensive approach. His edgy, inpatient, and blaming
presentation with various providers, including this psychologist,
as well as a history of aggressive behaviors, is additionally
concerning relative to his ability to safely and appropriately guide
a young boy through the difficult interactions of childhood and
adolescence.
23. Father completed four sessions of anger management and
did not return. The referral for anger management closed on
August 31, 2016, due to nonattendance. FCM provided a second
referral for anger management on October 5, 2016. Father
declined to participate.
24. From removal in April 2015 through the summer of 2016,
information was also gained about the Child’s condition.
25. At the Dispositional Hearing, the Child was identified for
speech therapy and case management services. (State’s Exhibit
12).
26. Before starting the case management services, the Child
completed a general mental health needs assessment (MRO).
The Child received a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with some
anxiety present. Contributing factors were believed to be
domestic violence he had witnessed in his home and the
circumstances related to his removal. (State’s Exhibit 14).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 9 of 19
27. The Child was initially placed in relative care with maternal
family. The relative placement reported the Child urinating on
bathroom walls and making statements of wanting to kill
everyone. (State’s Exhibit 14).
28. From the MRO, the Child was recommended for therapy to
address anger and behaviors. The Child was referred to services
with Adult and Child.
29. In November 2015, the Child was placed in the home of his
paternal grandmother, where Father also resided. Father and
grandmother were given referrals for the Child to continue his
therapy with Adult and Child in their community of
Indianapolis.
30. The Child was removed from the home of his paternal
grandmother on or about April 5, 2016 due to several concerns.
Safety became a concern for the FCM during two attempts to
visit the home. Father was unable to have professional
communication with the FCM during one of the attempted visits.
During a subsequent visit, the FCM perceived Father to be
threatening and intimidating. In addition, Father and paternal
grandmother had failed to initiate the required therapy for the
Child. Two referrals had been made for the therapy, with both
closing for lack of contact. (State’s Exhibit 23).
31. After removal from relative placement with paternal
grandmother, the Child was placed in foster care. The foster
parents sought further evaluation of the Child due to concerns of
significant developmental delays.
32. The foster parents noted that when the Child came into their
care at approximately five years of age, he did not know any
colors, shapes, or letter sounds. This was after the Child had
been in relative placement with Father in the home for
approximately four months.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 10 of 19
33. The Child also came into the foster home with deficits in fine
motor skills. The Child required a high level of supervision to
insure his safety. The Child was first thought to be accident-
prone.
34. The Child actually has a preliminary diagnosis of
Asymmetrical Tonic Neck Reflex, something he should have
outgrown at six months of age. The condition does result in lack
of balance, ADHD like symptoms, vision difficulties and
coordination issues. (CASA Report).
35. Dr. Kristen Hurley of Estes Neuropsychology completed an
assessment of the Child on November 2, 2016. Dr. Hurley noted
that the Child had no intellectual disabilities, and his delays were
due to a non-stimulating environment, that did not encourage
growth or learning. (State’s Exhibit 27).
36. The Child receives intense treatment, which includes
physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy.
37. Father has been unable to recognize that the Child has any
delays.
38. Father has struggled in understanding the Child’s deficits
and the level of supervision required for the Child’s safety.
39. Fatherhood Engagement had an opportunity to discuss the
findings of Father’s psychological evaluation and the findings
regarding the Child in July 2016. Father took issue with the
Child’s findings. The caseworker discussed the need for Father
to be able to learn in the CHINS case. Father was advised to
meet with the FCM in order to clearly understand what was
preventing placement of the Child with Father. Second, Father
was advised to address any of the noted concerns without
argument. Father continued to express displeasure with his
psychological evaluation findings and continued to dispute any
potential diagnosis the Child could have. The caseworker ended
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 11 of 19
the conversation by pointing out to Father that his comments
were examples of Father’s inability or unwillingness to address
his issues along with an unwillingness to understand the Child’s
needs.
40. Father failed to engage in any services with Fatherhood
Engagement in August 2016. His referral closed the month of
August due to nonattendance. FCM provided a third referral for
Fatherhood Engagement on October 14, 2016. Father declined
to participate.
***
45. Neither parent has ever been permitted unsupervised
Visitation since the child’s original removal.
***
47. Father’s visitation with the Child was inconsistent. Family
Case Managers noted that Father would be cyclical as to his
participation in visits. There were times when he would not see
the Child for a month at a time and following some discussion
with Father, he would improve in his attendance for six weeks or
so. He was initially provided two supervised visits per week. By
January 2016, the visit frequency was reduced to one time to per
week due to nonattendance. The visits returned to two times per
week in May 2016 but then attendance again became
inconsistent. The visitation supervisor assigned to Father’s visits
reported that between April 2015 to November 2016, Father
attended about 75% of his scheduled visits.
48. There is an observable bond between Father and the Child.
49. Father has failed to put the child’s needs before his own.
Father has never traveled to the town where the Child is placed
to have visits. This was specifically suggested to Father and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 12 of 19
memorialized in a Court Order from a hearing held on July 27,
2015. Father was specifically asked to think about how he could
help in reducing the travel the Child had to undergo, often on
consecutive days, to visit with him. Father was encouraged to
share in the driving for the visits or to consider a location that
would shorten the distance for visitation. Father never acted
upon any of the suggestions. In addition, at times Father
confirmed and then cancelled visits with the Child, even when
the Child was in route to see Father. (State’s Exhibit 14).
50. Dr. Linda McIntire’s report noted that individuals with
Father’s diagnoses are unable to prioritize the needs of children
over themselves and have difficulty empathizing with others.
51. Father testified that he does not believe that his completion
of an anger management program or Fatherhood Engagement
could have benefitted the Child.
52. The Child has an older half sibling. She joined the foster
home with the Child on August 18, 2016.
53. The family therapist testified that many adults have
disappointed the Child in his young life, and that severing the
relationship between the Child and the Child’s older sibling could
cause a regression in the Child’s emotional and psychological
well-being, as the Child’s relationship with [his] older sibling has
been a constant and consistent relationship.
54. The foster parents desire to adopt both the Child and his half
sibling.
***
56. Mother and Father have failed to support the Child during
the life of the case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 13 of 19
57. Father has lived with his mother and stepfather through the
life of the CHINS case. He has a source of income with SSI but
acknowledged during his psychological evaluation that he cannot
live off his SSI. He has shown no motivation for employment,
other than seasonal work with his father, which allows him to
forego working when experiencing anxiety.
58. Mother and Father have failed to make any notable progress
under the case plan.
59. The Child is thriving in a loving, structured and stable home.
The Child has made gains while in the foster home. One simple
example is his participation in soccer. The Child played soccer
for the first time and was the team’s top scorer. As noted by the
CASA, just six short months earlier, the Child could not run
without falling.
60. DCS’ plan for Child is that he be adopted by his current
foster parents.
61. The CASA also supports adoption by the foster parents as
the permanency plan for the child.
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 49-56. This appeal ensued.3
Discussion and Decision
[4] 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
3
Mother does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 14 of 19
Div. of Fam. & Child. (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 Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (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.
[5] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS
is required to allege and prove:
(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.
***
(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 15 of 19
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2018). 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).
[6] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cty. Off. of
Fam. & Child. (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.
Judy S. v. Noble Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[7] Here, in terminating Father’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 Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 16 of 19
[8] On appeal, Father raises a single dispositive issue for our review, namely,
whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the conditions that resulted
in Child’s removal and the reasons for his placement outside of Father’s home
will not be remedied.4 In essence, Father maintains that, because the reasons
for Child’s removal were based on Mother’s heroin addiction, which had
nothing to do with Father, DCS cannot show that the conditions that resulted
in Child’s removal from his care would not be remedied. But Father’s argument
misses the mark.
[9] This court has clarified that, given the wording of the statute, it is not just the
basis for the initial removal of the child that may be considered for purposes of
determining whether a parent’s rights should be terminated, but also those bases
resulting in the continued placement outside of a parent’s home. Inkenhaus v.
Vanderburgh Cty. Off. of Fam. and Children (In re A.I.), 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Here, the trial court properly considered the
conditions leading to the continued placement outside of Father’s home rather
than simply focusing on the basis for the initial removal of Child. Father does
not challenge the trial court’s findings underlying its conclusion on this issue.
4
Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, and because we hold that the court’s conclusion on this
issue was not erroneous, we need not address Father’s contention that the court erred when it concluded that
continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child’s well-being. I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). And
Father does not dispute the court’s conclusions relevant to the other subsections of the statute, such as Child’s
best interests.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 17 of 19
[10] And the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and conclusion. To
determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for Child’s
continued placement outside of Father’s home will not be remedied, the trial
court should judge Father’s fitness to care for Child at the time of the
termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.
See E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re E.M.), 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014).
However, the court must also “evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of
conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the
child.” Moore v. Jasper Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218, 226 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant to this rule, courts
have properly considered evidence of a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and
alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of
adequate housing and employment. Id. Moreover, DCS is not required to rule
out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that there is a
reasonable probability the parent’s behavior will not change. Id.[11] The trial court found, and the evidence supports, that Father: did not
successfully complete programs for anger management and denies having anger
problems; did not successfully complete Fatherhood Engagement; disagrees
with the results of his psychological evaluation; is unable or unwilling to
address Child’s special needs; has had inconsistent visitation with Child and has
never had unsupervised visitation; does not put Child’s needs before his own
needs; and sees no benefit to Child of Father’s participation in anger
management. Father’s habitual patterns of conduct demonstrate that he is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 18 of 19
unlikely to make the necessary effort to be a suitable parent to Child. Thus, we
cannot say that the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that the reasons
for Child’s continued placement outside of Father’s home will not be remedied.
[12] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-449 | August 29, 2018 Page 19 of 19