In the Matter of the Termination of the Parental Rights of: M-1.C., M-n.C. & M.E.C. (Minor Children) and N.E. (Mother) and M.C. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jan 11 2018, 8:19 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT N.E. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kara A. Hancuff Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General
Bloomington, Indiana
Robert J. Henke
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT M.C. Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Karen E. Wrenbeck
Monroe County Public Defender
Bloomington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination January 11, 2018
of the Parental Rights of: Court of Appeals Case No.
53A05-1706-JT-1264
M-l.C., M-n.C. & M.E.C.
(Minor Children) Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
and Court VII
N.E. (Mother) and M.C. (Father) The Honorable Stephen Galvin,
Judge
Appellants-Respondents,
Trial Court Cause Nos.
v. 53C07-1608-JT-519
53C07-1608-JT-520
Indiana Department of Child 53C07-1608-JT-521
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 1 of 11
Case Summary
[1] M.C. (“Father”) and N.E. (“Mother”) appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their three children. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The undisputed facts are set forth in the trial court’s order.1 Mother and Father
are the parents to three children: twins born in June 2013 and another child
born in November 2014 (collectively “the children”). On March 7, 2015,
marijuana smoke was detected coming from Mother’s apartment in
Bloomington. Officers searched the apartment and found marijuana, crack
cocaine, and eighty-eight Lortab pills in the bedroom where Mother and the
children slept. The children could access the marijuana. Upon further search
of the apartment, officers found two loaded guns and stolen lottery tickets.
Mother was arrested and claimed that the lottery tickets belonged to Father.
When questioned by officers, Father admitted that he had been at Mother’s
home the day before she was arrested. Father also submitted to a drug screen,
which was positive for marijuana.
[3] The children were removed from their parents’ care at the time of Mother’s
arrest. Two of the children were suffering from coughs, and one child was
1
Because neither Mother nor Father challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, we accept them as true. See
Maldem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1992) (“Because Maldem does not challenge the findings of the trial
court, they must be accepted as true.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 2 of 11
recovering from pneumonia. Department of Child Services (DCS) filed
children in need of services (CHINS) petitions, and the children were
adjudicated CHINS on May 7 and later placed in a foster-care home, where
they have remained for over two years. In June 2015, a dispositional hearing
was held for both Mother and Father. Both parents were ordered to: maintain
weekly contact with the DCS family case manager; participate in home-based
counseling; complete a substance-abuse assessment and complete all treatment
recommendations; submit to random drug and alcohol screens; and attend all
scheduled visits with the children.
[4] Amanda Kelly, a home-based family case worker with Ireland Home Based
Services, began working with Mother and Father in November 2015. She
supervised visits between the parents and the children and offered parenting
instruction to Mother and Father. There were many issues with the visits:
Mother had difficulty supervising the children by herself; Mother did not follow
through on disciplining the children; Kelly had to intervene to ensure the
children’s safety; Father was routinely late to visits; and the parents failed to
bring adequate supplies, such as diapers and wipes.
[5] Debra Hoesman, a mental-health practitioner, began counseling with Mother in
February 2016. Hoesman completed a substance-abuse assessment on Mother
in May 2016 and diagnosed Mother with cannabis dependence and major
depressive disorder. Hoesman recommended that Mother have weekly therapy
sessions. Mother attended only ten sessions, with her last appointment in June
2016. During this time, Mother was also inconsistent in submitting to drug
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 3 of 11
screens, but when she did submit, she repeatedly failed. Mother frequently
tested positive for marijuana and twice tested positive for heroin. Around the
time Mother stopped seeing Hoesman, the DCS case manager noticed an
increase in Mother’s marijuana use. Mother told the case manager that she
used marijuana as a coping mechanism for stress.
[6] Meanwhile, Father continued his involvement with illegal drugs and was
arrested in June 2016 at Mother’s apartment. Officers found cocaine, forty
grams of heroin, and a stolen handgun. Father was convicted in April 2017 of
one count of dealing in a narcotic drug and sentenced to eighteen years in the
Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), with six years suspended. He will
be incarcerated for approximately eight more years.2 Before his arrest, Father
did not engage with DCS or its service providers, telling them that he was not
interested in services, that he “was a good father,” that he had other things to
do, and that he “was living the life and that was the way he had to make a
living.” Appellants’ App. Vol II p. 273; Tr. Vol. II p. 15. Father also told the
case manager that he did not have a substance-abuse problem, but he never
submitted to a drug screen after the CHINS adjudications.
2
The trial court’s findings state the Father will be released in five years. However, IDOC’s offender search
lists Father’s projected release date as January 2026. https://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs (last
visited 01/04/2018).
3
Mother and Father appealed separately but filed only one appendix. In his brief, Father stated that he
would not “be filing an Appendix, as it would be identical to Mother’s and thus unduly duplicative.”
Father’s Appellant’s Br. p. 4 (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 50(E)). Accordingly, we attribute the single
appendix to both parties.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 4 of 11
[7] Shortly after Father’s arrest, Mother moved to Michigan but did not tell the
DCS case manager that she was moving. Mother claimed that she moved
because she was going to be evicted and needed the support of family. But
Mother had two sisters, two aunts, and two uncles living in Bloomington when
she moved. After moving, Mother did not request that DCS arrange for her
services to be transferred to Michigan. Mother also failed to maintain weekly
contact with the case manager.
[8] Mother last visited the children on June 15, 2016. She never traveled from
Michigan to Indiana to see the children. Mother was supposed to see the
children in November 2016 but did not make the trip. The children were
“extremely disappointed.” Id. at 30. Mother later requested to have video
contact with the children, but her request was denied because it had been
approximately seven months since she had seen the children.
[9] In August 2016, DCS filed its termination petitions. A hearing on the petitions
was held in February 2017. During the hearing, the DCS case manager and
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for the children testified that
termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interests. See Tr. Vol. II pp. 63-64, 81. The trial court concluded: that the
children had been removed from their parents for at least six months under a
dispositional decree; that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions
that resulted in the removal of the children or the reasons for their continued
placement outside of the home would not be remedied; that the continuation of
the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being; that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 5 of 11
termination was in the children’s best interests; and that a satisfactory plan for
the care and treatment of the children was in place—adoption. The trial court
terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.
[10] Mother and Father appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[11] Mother and Father filed separate briefs, and where possible, we address their
arguments as one. Both parents argue that the trial court erred when it
terminated their parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental
rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.T.K.,
989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). Rather, we consider only the evidence and
reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment of the trial court.
Id. When a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions, we will not
set aside the trial court’s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. To
determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous,
we review whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether
the findings support the judgment. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1143 (Ind.
2016).
[12] A petition to terminate parental rights must allege, among other things:
(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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 6 of 11
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.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by
clear and convincing evidence. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231. If the court
finds that the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the
parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).
[13] Mother and Father both contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the
trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions
that resulted in the children’s removal or continued placement outside the home
would not be remedied. When a parent challenges this conclusion, we engage
in a two-step analysis. “First, we must ascertain what conditions led to their
placement and retention in foster care. Second, we determine whether there is
a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” K.T.K.,
989 N.E.2d at 1231. “The trial court must consider a parent’s habitual pattern
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 7 of 11
of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future
neglect or deprivation.” Id.
[14] The children were removed from the home due to Mother’s and Father’s drug
use and the parents’ inability to provide an adequate home or proper care for
their children. These conditions did not change over the course of the CHINS
proceedings for either parent. Regarding Mother, she repeatedly failed her drug
screens, testing positive for marijuana and heroin. Mother contends that she
was drug free after moving to Michigan. She stated that she was working at
Walmart, which requires all potential employees to submit to drug tests. But
the trial court rejected this argument because Mother worked for Walmart
when she lived in Bloomington and repeatedly tested positive for marijuana.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 29. Mother’s argument is a request for us to
reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.
Mother also struggled to care for the children during her supervised visits. She
failed to follow through on discipline, and on at least one occasion Kelly had to
intervene to keep the children safe. Furthermore, Mother also stopped visiting
the children after moving to Michigan and has not seen them since June 2016.4
4
Mother also argues that DCS ignored her requests to have services transferred to Michigan, and thus, the
trial court erred when it terminated her parental rights. But the trial court’s findings of fact explicitly state
that Mother “did not request that DCS arrange for her to participate in services in Michigan. DCS could
have arranged for drug screens and other services in Michigan.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 28. Mother’s
argument is nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. K.T.K., 989
N.E.2d at 1229.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 8 of 11
[15] As for Father, he contends that the State relied solely on his incarceration to
support its petition for termination. Father compares his situation to that of the
father in K.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015).
In K.E., the father was incarcerated before his child was born and did
“everything he had been asked while incarcerated, actively participated in
substance abuse programs, established regular visitation with K.E., and spoke
to K.E. every night on the phone.” Id. at 645. Our Supreme Court overturned
the termination of father’s parental rights. Here, Father’s situation is readily
distinguishable from K.E. After the CHINS adjudications, Father refused to
engage with DCS or any of its service providers. He told them that he was not
interested in services, that he “was a good father,” that he had other things to
do, and that he “was living the life and that was the way he had to make a
living.” Appellants’ App. Vol II p. 27; Tr. Vol. II p. 15. Father was eventually
incarcerated for selling drugs. Father has not participated in any services since
his incarceration. There is sufficient evidence to show that neither Mother nor
Father prioritized the needs of the children above their own. The trial court did
not err when it concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the
conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for their
placement outside the home will not be remedied. 5
5
Father also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that there is a
reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well-
being. Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive and requires clear and convincing
evidence of only one of the circumstances listed in subsection (B). See In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146, 153 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009). Because we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 9 of 11
[16] Additionally, Mother and Father both challenge the court’s conclusion that
termination was in the children’s best interests. To determine what is in the
children’s best interests, the trial court must look to the totality of the evidence.
In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In doing
so, the trial court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the
children. Id. The court need not wait until the children are irreversibly harmed
before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. We have previously held
that recommendations by both the DCS case manager and CASA to terminate
parental rights, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal
will not be remedied, is clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the
best interests of the children. Id. at 1158-59. Here, both the DCS case manager
and the CASA testified that termination was in the children’s best interests. See
Tr. Vol. II pp. 63-64, 81. And, as already discussed, there is sufficient evidence
to support the conclusion that the conditions resulting in removal or placement
outside of the home will not be remedied. Furthermore, the children have spent
most of their lives in foster care because the parents are incapable of providing a
safe, stable home free of illegal drug use. The children, however, were excelling
in their foster home, which was pre-adoptive. The court found that the children
were “smart, happy, [and] well-adjusted” and that adoption was a satisfactory
that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for
placement outside the home will not be remedied, we do not address this argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 10 of 11
plan for them. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 31. Accordingly, the trial court did
not err when it concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.
[17] Affirmed.
May, J., and Altice, J. concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 11 of 11