In re Adoption of C.H. and H.H., S.S. v. J.N. and Z.N. (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 12 2017, 8:27 am
court except for the purpose of
CLERK
establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Jeffery A. Earl Karen Celestino-Horseman
Danville, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re Adoption of C.H. and H.H., July 12, 2017
S.S., Court of Appeals Case No.
32A01-1607-AD-1599
Appellant,
Appeal from the Hendricks
v. Superior Court
The Honorable Robert W. Freese,
J.N. and Z.N., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Interveners
32D01-1512-AD-32
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 32A01-1607-AD-1599 | July 12, 2017 Page 1 of 3
[1] Mother has filed a petition for rehearing, which we grant for the limited
purpose of addressing the issues she raises. First, Mother notes that we made
an inadvertent error in footnote one, in which we stated that her other children
had been adopted with Mother’s consent. We hereby correct that inadvertent
error by clarifying that her other children are in the process of being adopted
with Mother’s consent. This fact did not affect our decision.
[2] Second, Mother argues that she did not admit that she is unable to care for or
provide for her children. The record reveals that she testified that she would
love to have them home but could not provide for them sufficiently so believed
they should be adopted by her sister, Tr. Vol. I p. 129; that she would be unable
to provide her children with clothes, school supplies, or anything beyond “a
roof over their head and food in their mouth,” id. at 129, 131; that she never
made any payments toward her child support obligation, Tr. Vol. II p. 97; that
she allegedly cannot work but does not receive disability payments, id.; and that
she could not afford to pay any money for her children “because I had to keep a
roof over my head,” id. at 100. She directs our attention to other evidence in
the record in support of her claims, but this amounts to a request that we
reweigh evidence, which we decline to do.
[3] Third, Mother argues that she did not admit to untreated mental health
disorders. The record belies this claim. She admitted that in 2007, she quit
taking medications; that in 2012, “I decided then I was not going to take any
more pills unless I absolutely had to so I have used marijuana to cope with my
bi-polar and my anxiety and my depression,” Tr. Vol. II p. 13; that she uses
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 32A01-1607-AD-1599 | July 12, 2017 Page 2 of 3
marijuana to cope with her mental health disorders (“I refer to my marijuana as
my medication for my bi-polar and my anxiety,” id. at 105); that she does not
like the way she feels on medication; and that at the time of the hearing, she
was doing “[t]he best I can” to keep her emotions under control without
medication. Id. She directs our attention to other evidence in the record, but
this amounts to a request that we reweigh evidence, which we decline to do.
[4] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny Mother’s
petition for rehearing.
Robb, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 32A01-1607-AD-1599 | July 12, 2017 Page 3 of 3