In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.S. (Minor Child): A.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 05 2017, 10:21 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
Joann M. Price Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Merrillville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- May 5, 2017
Child Relationship of D.S. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Child): 45A03-1611-JT-2573
A.S. (Father), Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable Thomas P.
v. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
The Indiana Department of 45D06-1508-JT-201
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 1 of 14
[1] A.S. (Father) appeals the termination of his relationship with his child, D.S.
(Child). Father argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the
termination. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Child was born in November 2011 and A.A., her half-sister (Sister),1 was born
in July 2013. In November 2013, the Department of Child Services (DCS)
began investigating allegations related to the children. DCS learned that a
caregiver (Caregiver) had been caring for Child for approximately two years
and for Sister since her birth. Mother and paternal grandmother had agreed,
with Father’s knowledge, that the children should be placed in Caregiver’s care.
[3] On November 23, 2013, DCS removed both children from Caregiver’s home
and placed them in foster care. At that time, Child was withdrawn and non-
verbal, she had sores on her head and was missing patches of hair, and was
dirty. Father admitted that Child was a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) on
March 31, 2014. The trial court ordered Father to participate in certain
services, including a parenting assessment, an initial clinical assessment, and
regular supervised visitation with Child.
[4] Of concern in this case is Child’s special needs. She has been diagnosed with a
mild developmental disability and is at least two years delayed in her
1
Father is not Sister’s father. In a separate consolidated appeal, Mother and Sister’s father appeal the
termination of their parental rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 2 of 14
development. After she was removed from Caregiver, she did not speak for six
months, hoarded food, and cried at the end of meals. She has participated in
multiple services, including occupational and speech therapy. Child has
progressed—her speech has improved and her hair is growing back—but she
has ongoing developmental delays and will continue to receive special needs
services. It is important that Child attend all of her appointments.
[5] Father completed a number of assessments and participated in homebased
therapy. In February 2015, Father began participating in individual therapy
with clinical therapist Audrey Gaines. He worked with Gaines for over a year.
At the termination hearing, Gaines testified that there are several barriers
preventing Father from being an appropriate parent: (1) he does not have full-
time employment; (2) he does not have a big enough home that is suitable for
raising a child; and (3) he does not have good decision-making skills. Tr. p. 36-
37. Gaines also stated that Father needs to work on “making rational decisions
and as an adult calming down, not being quick to explode when things occur.”
Id. at 38. At the time of the termination hearing, Gaines did not believe that
Father was in any position to parent his child because he was not “in a stable
place” with “a sound mind[.]” Id. Gaines also did not believe that Father had
the consistency and discipline to ensure that Child went to all of her
appointments. In Gaines’s opinion, Father is “incapable” of maintaining the
stability that would be necessary to be an appropriate parent. Id. at 42.
[6] In addition to his therapy sessions with Gaines, Father had supervised visitation
with Child on Saturdays. Father, however, was inconsistent in his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 3 of 14
participation, missing approximately 40% of the visits. He frequently cancelled
at the last minute. His reasons for cancellation included lack of transportation,
being too tired, and having other obligations. The visitation supervisor
expressed concerns about a lack of interaction between Father and Child at the
visits. In visitation reports from March, April, and May 2016, the visitation
supervisor reported as follows:
[Father] needs to focus more on his one on one interaction with
[Child]. [She] observed [Father] being distracted with interacting
with other people in the mall, spending excessive amounts of
time texting on his phone, talking to the provider about how he
can’t wait for the case to be over, and fails to interact with
[Child] and she doesn’t talk much during visitations. [She] also
reported during a visit, [Father] purchased a cell phone case at
the mall but at lunch time, [Father] stated he did not have
enough money and the visitation facilitator purchased the meal
for [Child]. On the most recent visitation report on 5/21/16,
[Father] was observed not to acknowledge [Child’s] presence at
the arrival to the car at pickup. [Father] appeared to have an
attitude about coming to the visit and miss going to work. During
the lunch [Father] failed to interact with [Child] and was
redirected to engage [Child] into conversation. [She] noted it
appears [Father] is content with talking with others around him
and often fails to interact as much as needed with [Child] during
community visits. [She] notated [Father] called to cancel his
visitation at least twice before coming to the 5/21/16 visit. It
appears that [Father] is looking for excuses to not attend and has
to be encouraged to come to visits by the visitation facilitator. . . .
DCS Ex. V p. 6. He also used Child during community visits to “pursue
women.” Tr. p. 148-49. Father never made sufficient progress to be able to
transition to unsupervised visits with Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 4 of 14
[7] On August 26, 2015, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights.
At the time of the October 12, 2016, termination hearing, Father was employed
part-time as a school bus aide. He lived in a one-bedroom apartment in
Chicago, which Gaines observed in person and later testified was not big
enough to house both Father and Child. Father relied on public transportation
and admitted that he was unable to provide Child transportation to and from
her appointments. On October 18, 2016, the trial court granted the termination
petition, finding, in relevant part, as follows:
[Father] does not have independent stable housing or adequate
employment. [Father] has struggled with stability throughout
this case, over the past three years and still is in no position to be
able to take care of his child. [Father] was not consistent with his
visitations with his child. [Father] has missed approximately
forty percent of the visits offered. [Father] indicated that he
would miss visits due to working and that working was more
important that [sic] visiting the child. [Father] was not engaging
with the child when he would visit. [Father] testified that he
would be unable to transport his child to her various doctor
appointments for her specialized needs due to having no
transportation. [Father] relies on others and public
transportation for his travel needs. Father testified that he would
be unable to care for his child’s special needs. [Father] has
received services for three years and is no closer to reunification
with his child.
***
The children are special needs children and require constant care
and supervision and have numerous appointments with various
providers. The children’s needs are all being met in their current
placement. The children are thriving in their placement and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 5 of 14
[have] made a lot of progress while in the care of the foster
parent. None of the parents have the ability to meet the special
needs of the children.
***
. . . The Court notes no parent . . . has been able to obtain
stability over the past three years. The Court must consider the
children’s well-being. It is unlikely that any parent will be in a
position to properly parent these children in the near future. The
children have been in the same placement for the last three years
and it is the only home that they know. To remove the children
would be detrimental to the children’s well-being. . . .
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 2-4. Child’s foster mother plans to adopt her if the
termination is finalized. Father now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[8] Father argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
termination order. Our standard of review with respect to termination of
parental rights proceedings is well established. In considering whether
termination was appropriate, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess
witness credibility. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229
(Ind. 2013). We will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that
may be drawn therefrom in support of the judgment, giving due regard to the
trial court’s opportunity to judge witness credibility firsthand. Id. Where, as
here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 6 of 14
set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. In making that
determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly
supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the
judgment. Id. at 1229-30. It is “sufficient to show by clear and convincing
evidence that the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened by
the respondent parent’s custody.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children,
839 N.E.2d 143, 148 (Ind. 2005).
[9] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) requires that a petition to terminate
parental rights for a CHINS must make the following allegations:
(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;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 7 of 14
(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.
(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.
DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.
K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230.
II. Evidence
[10] Father argues that the evidence does not establish that (1) there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal will not be
remedied; (2) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to
Child’s well-being; (3) termination is in Child’s best interest; or (4) that DCS
has a satisfactory post-termination plan in place for Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 8 of 14
A. Conditions Resulting in Removal
[11] As noted above, one of the ways to support a termination petition is for DCS to
prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that resulted in the
child’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parent will
not be remedied. Here, Child was initially removed because, with Father’s
knowledge, Mother had placed her in the care of Caregiver. At the time of her
removal, Child was non-verbal, was dirty, and had sores on her head and
patches of missing hair. Throughout the CHINS and termination cases, Child
has continued to be removed because of service providers’ concerns about
Father’s stability (including employment and housing), his behavior during
visits, and his ability to meet all of Child’s special needs.
[12] The trial court found that at the time of the termination hearing, Father did not
have independent stable housing or adequate employment. Father notes that he
did, in fact, have both housing and employment at that time. That is correct,
but his therapist testified that to be a safe and appropriate caregiver for Child,
Father needed to find full-time employment and housing that would have room
for Child. Despite having three years of service providers in place to help him
achieve sufficient stability to care for Child, Father had not achieved that
stability by the time of the termination hearing. It is certainly the case that the
mere fact that a parent has insufficient income would not, on its own, be
sufficient to support a termination order. Here, however, it is just one fact
among many supporting the trial court’s order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 9 of 14
[13] Similarly, Father’s lack of transportation would not, in and of itself, be
sufficient to support a termination order. Here, however, transportation is
particularly important given Child’s special needs and her frequent
appointments with service providers to meet those needs. Father testified that
“I can’t provide transportation, getting her to appointments and stuff like that.”
Tr. p. 102. Again, Father has had three years to achieve sufficient stability to
meet Child’s needs, but has not yet managed to do so.
[14] While Father did participate in services throughout the CHINS case, he did not
benefit from those services. See In re A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005) (affirming termination order where parent participated in services but
failed to benefit from those services). Here, the record reveals that, despite
participating in multiple services for three years, Father failed to progress to a
point where he could be a safe parent:
 Father missed approximately 40% of his visits with Child.
 During the visits he did attend, Father did not fully engage with Child.
 Father never progressed to unsupervised visits or overnight visits.
 Father did not have a full-time job.
 Father did not have a house that was suitable for Child.
 Father was unable to transport Child to her many appointments.
 Father did not have the discipline to ensure Child attended her
appointments.
In short, Father was in no position to parent Child at the time of the
termination hearing. Tr. p. 38-39. He came close to admitting that at the
termination hearing, saying, “[a] little bit, I feel like I can [parent her]. And [] a
little bit, I feel like I can’t.” Id. at 102.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 10 of 14
[15] Father has had three years to become an appropriate parent. He has not
managed to do so. He admitted that it was unfair to ask Child to wait for a
permanent home until he got to a point in his life when he could meet all her
needs. Id. at 105. Indeed, we do not require children to “wait indefinitely for
their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.” In re E.M., 4
N.E.3d 636, 648 (Ind. 2014). Here, we find that the evidence supports the trial
court’s conclusion that DCS established by clear and convincing evidence that
there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in Child’s original
and continued removal from Father will not be remedied.
B. Threat to Child’s Well-Being
[16] Next, Father argues that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child’s well-
being. With respect to this statutory element, the trial court “need not wait
until a child is irreversibly influenced by a deficient lifestyle such that her
physical, mental, and social growth is permanently impaired before terminating
the parent-child relationship.” In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). Instead, “[w]hen the evidence shows that the emotional and physical
development of a child in need of services is threatened, termination of the
parent-child relationship is appropriate.” Id.[17] Here, the record shows that Father knew that Child was in the care of
Caregiver. At the time of Child’s initial removal, she was non-verbal and had
significant developmental delays. She did not speak for six months following
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 11 of 14
removal and hoarded food, crying when mealtime was over. Since her
removal, placement in foster care, and participation with services, Child has
progressed and is thriving.
[18] At the time of the termination hearing, even though Child had made progress,
she still needed significant special needs services. Father admitted he was
unable to transport Child to her appointments. The Family Case Manager
(FCM) testified that Father was unable to care for Child’s special needs.
Gaines testified that she did not believe Father had sufficient discipline to
ensure Child attended all of her appointments. If Child were placed in Father’s
care, her physical and emotional development would be threatened. Under
these circumstances, we find that the record supports the trial court’s conclusion
that DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that continuation of the
parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child’s well-being.
C. Best Interests
[19] Father next argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s
conclusion that termination of the parent-child relationship is in Child’s best
interests. In considering this element, we must consider the totality of the
evidence, subordinating the interests of the parent to that of the child involved.
In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236
(Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
[20] Here, despite having had three years to better his situation, at the time of the
termination hearing, Father did not have full-time employment, suitable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 12 of 14
housing, or the ability to transport Child to her appointments. The FCM and
Gaines both testified that they did not believe Father would be able to care for a
child with special needs. Father even admitted that, at the time of the
termination hearing, it was in Child’s best interests to remain placed with her
foster mother.
[21] Child had been removed from Father for virtually all of her life. While he did
visit with her and they developed a relationship, he missed nearly 40% of those
visits. And when he did attend the visits, the supervisor had concerns about the
lack of interaction between Father and Child.
[22] Father argues that termination is not in Child’s best interests because there is no
guarantee that Child’s foster mother will allow post-adoption contact between
Father and Child. But post-adoption contact is a matter reserved for the
adoption court and is not a factor when determining whether termination is in a
Child’s best interests. Ind. Code § 31-19-16-2; cf. In re M.B., 921 N.E.2d 494,
500 (Ind. 2009) (holding that unless all provisions of the open adoption statutes
are satisfied, “the voluntary termination of parental rights may not be
conditioned upon post-adoption contact privileges”). And as noted by the
State, Father did not even take advantage of all of his visits or of the additional
contact offered by foster mother during the CHINS case. 2 We do not find this
to be a compelling argument, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the
2
Foster mother invited Father to Child’s birthday parties, but Father failed to attend.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 13 of 14
trial court’s conclusion that DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of the parent-child relationship is in Child’s best interests.
D. Satisfactory Plan
[23] Finally, Father challenges the trial court’s conclusion that DCS has a
satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of Child following termination. He
essentially repeats his argument that the plan of adoption is unsatisfactory
because foster mother has the option to deny post-adoption contact. As noted
above, however, post-adoption contact is a matter for the adoption court, not
the termination court, to consider. I.C. § 31-19-16-2.
[24] DCS’s plan is adoption. Adoption is a satisfactory plan. In re S.L.H.S., 885
N.E.2d 603, 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). And although DCS is not required to
identify a specific family in place to adopt the child, in this case, it has. The
record reveals that Child has been placed with foster mother for three years, has
thrived in her care, and is bonded to her. The evidence readily supports the trial
court’s conclusion that DCS has a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and
treatment.
[25] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1611-JT-2573 | May 5, 2017 Page 14 of 14