In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Z.C. and L.C. (Minor Children) and N.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Feb 13 2018, 8:32 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Justin R. Wall Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wall Legal Services Attorney General of Indiana
Huntington, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Involuntary February 13, 2018
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of Z.C. and L.C. 85A02-1710-JT-2386
(Minor Children) and Appeal from the Wabash Circuit
Court
N.S. (Mother) and J.C. (Father), The Honorable Robert R.
McCallen, III, Judge
Appellants-Respondents,
Trial Court Cause Nos.
v. 85C01-1612-JT-16, 17
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 1 of 11
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] N.S.(“Mother”) and J.C. (“Father”) (collectively “Parents”) appeal the trial
court’s order involuntarily terminating their parental rights to their minor
children, Z.C. and L.C. (collectively “the Children”). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Parents are the biological parents of Z.C., born February 2, 2007, and L.C.,
born May 21, 2014. In July 2015, the Wabash County Department of Child
Services (“DCS”) was contacted by the Wabash County Drug Task Force
following a raid at Parents’ home. At the time, Mother was incarcerated and
Father and the Children were residing in the home. The Children were
removed from the home due to the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia, as
well as the deplorable conditions of the home. DCS filed petitions alleging that
the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”). Initial hearings
were held, and the Children were placed with their paternal grandmother.
After only a few days, the Children’s disposition was changed and they were
placed in foster care where they have remained since.
[3] In September 2015, both Mother and Father appeared at a hearing and each
admitted that the Children were CHINS. The trial court entered a CHINS
adjudication on October 9, 2015, and following a dispositional hearing, the trial
court ordered the Parents to participate in a variety of services, the majority of
which were centered on “their substance abuse issues and chaotic lifestyle.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 11
Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at. 65. However, over the next year, neither Mother
nor Father made substantial or meaningful progress and therefore, DCS filed
petitions to terminate both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights in December
2016. Following a termination hearing held in September 2017, the trial court
entered its order finding in relevant part: 1
Mother has been in and out of jail for a great portion of the time
these proceedings have been pending, restricting her ability to
engage, in any meaningful way, in services. She was just recently
released. Mother now professes her desire to get clean and stay
clear and to do whatever it takes. Sadly, her desire to do so, even
if sincere, is too little, too late. Z.C. and L.C. are twisting in the
wind. Further, Mother’s poor history of engaging in services even
when she was not incarcerated reflects her inability to do what
she needs to do to be a parent or to comply with services. Her
incarcerations were a result of her actions and she cannot now
hide behind that as a reason for not participating in services.
Mother even testified “I feel like I have had plenty of chances.”
She has, all to no avail.
Father has had his share of legal problems as well and his
substance abuse continued to inhibit his ability to engage, in any
meaningful way, in services. Not long after the petitions to
terminate parental rights were filed, Father relapsed. While he
sought treatment, he has yet to overcome his demons. To
Father’s credit, at least according to his testimony, he has been
sober for approximately the last 8 months. While he has engaged
in and even completed some services, they have not resulted in
any meaningful change. He resides in his mother’s home. His
work history is sporadic. He continues to minimize his
1
We note that the trial court refers to the parties by their full names. We use “Mother,” “Father,” and each
minor child’s initials where appropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 11
responsibility for the [C]hildren’s removal from his care. While
his intentions appear to be sincere, he is ill equipped to parent
any child. He continues to offer a myriad of excuses for his
inability to engage in some services, submit to drug testing and
see his children. His participation in the last 30 days has been nil.
…
Z.C. and L.C. are thriving in foster [care]. Each have their own
serious issues to deal with. Being older, Z.C. has lived more of
her life in chaos than has L.C. and, as a result, she has [bore] the
brunt of Father and Mother’s problems. Z.C. is very angry at her
parents and rightfully so. Prior efforts at reunification were
constantly met with destabilizing setbacks, occurring as recently
as April of this year. Z.C.’s therapist wondered how much more
she [Z.C.] can stand. Z.C. and L.C. need permanency, which
neither Father or Mother can provide. Both Father and Mother
acknowledge they have issues. However, neither seem to
appreciate the seriousness of their shortcomings, past and
present, which resulted in the removal of the [C]hildren in the
first place and which prevent reunification. Each appear to be
kind[-]hearted and well[-]intentioned. However, their history
speaks volumes about their ability to parent, both currently and
in the foreseeable future.
Id. at 66-67.
[4] Based upon these findings of fact, the trial court concluded that: (1) there is a
reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s
removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied by
either Parent; (2) there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 11
parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children;2 (3)
termination of the parent-child relationship between both Parents and the
Children is in the Children’s best interests; and (4) DCS has a satisfactory plan
for the care and treatment of the Children, which is adoption. Accordingly, the
trial court determined that DCS had proven the allegations of the petitions to
terminate parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and therefore
terminated both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. Both Parents now
appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[5] “The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parents but,
instead, to protect their children. Thus, although parental rights are of a
constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights
when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental
responsibilities.” In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citation
omitted). “[T]ermination is intended as a last resort, available only when all
other reasonable efforts have failed.” Id. A petition for the involuntary
termination of parental rights must allege in pertinent part:
(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
2
Specifically, the trial court concluded that continuation of the parent-child relationship “would be
detrimental to [the Children’s] physical and mental well-being.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 67.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 5 of 11
(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.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove “each and every element” by
clear and convincing evidence. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1261 (Ind. 2009);
Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2. If the trial 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).
[6] “We have long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving
the termination of parental rights.” C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d
85, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
We neither reweigh evidence nor assess witness credibility. We
consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to
the trial court’s judgment. Where the trial court enters findings
of fact and conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard
of review: we first determine whether the evidence supports the
findings and then determine whether the findings support the
judgment. In deference to the trial court’s unique position to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 6 of 11
assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a
parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous.
Id. at 92-93 (citations omitted). “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings
do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support
the judgment.” In re R.J., 829 N.E.2d 1032, 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
[7] Parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s
conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted
in the Children’s removal from and continued placement outside the home will
not be remedied, that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests
of the Children, and that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment
of the Children.
Section 1 – Parents fail to challenge the trial court’s
conclusion that continuation of the parent-child relationship
poses a threat to the well-being of the children.
[8] It is well-settled that because Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written
in the disjunctive, the trial court need only find that one of the three factors has
been established by clear and convincing evidence and it is not necessary for
DCS to prove, or for the juvenile court to find, either of the other two factors
listed. See In re A.D., 31 N.E.3d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We note that the
trial court here concluded both that (1) there is a reasonably probability that the
conditions resulting in the Children’s removal and continued placement outside
the Parents’ home will not be remedied and (2) that there is a reasonable
probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 7 of 11
to the well-being of the Children. On appeal, Parents only challenge the
evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions resulting in the Children’s removal and
continued placement outside the home will not be remedied and they make no
evidentiary challenge to the trial court’s conclusion that continuation of the
parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children.
Because the unchallenged conclusion, standing alone, satisfies the statutory
requirement listed in Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B), see In re L.S., 717
N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000), cert. denied (2002), we
need not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s
conclusion regarding the reasonable probability of unchanged conditions.
Section 2 – Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion that termination of both Mother’s and Father’s
parental rights is in the Children’s best interests.
[9] Parents assert that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion
that termination of their parental rights is in the Children’s best interests. In
considering whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a
child, the trial court is required to look beyond the factors identified by DCS
and look to the totality of the evidence. McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family &
Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In doing so, the trial court
must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the child involved. Id.
The trial court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed before
terminating parental rights. Id. “The historic inability to provide adequate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 8 of 11
housing, stability, and supervision, coupled with the current inability to provide
the same, will support a finding that continuation of the parent-child
relationship is contrary to the child’s best interests.” In re A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563,
570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The testimony of service providers may support a
finding that termination is in the child’s best interests. McBride, 798 N.E.2d at
203.
[10] Parents concede that “DCS established via testimony of a number of witnesses,
that they believed it to be in the best interest of the Children that the parent-
child relationship be terminated.” Appellants’ Br. at 22. Indeed, family
therapist Sandra Duecker testified regarding Z.C.’s extreme emotional distress,
stating that it was in her best interests if parental rights were terminated and
“she was allowed to be living in a home that had all of those things that she
needs, which is stability and soothing calmness, predictability … nurturance, …
all those things that are an important part of a child’s life.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 59.
Family case manager Jennifer Lane opined that termination of Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights to both Children was warranted because of the
“substantial amount of time” that neither parent has been able to make positive
changes and that at this point “the [C]hildren deserve permanency.” Id. at 159.
Even Mother testified that the Parents had not been stable and/or capable of
taking care of the Children and she admitted that the Children “have waited
long enough” for such stability. Id. at 106.
[11] Parents point to no contrary evidence in the record, and their argument
regarding best interests is sparse to say the least. Sufficient evidence supports
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 9 of 11
the trial court’s conclusion that termination of both Mother’s and Father’s
parental rights is in the Children’s best interests.
Section 3 – Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and
treatment of the Children.
[12] Finally, Parents contend that DCS failed to present clear and convincing
evidence that it has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the
Children. While the trial court must find that there is a satisfactory plan for the
care and treatment of the child, “[t]his plan need not be detailed, so long as it
offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the
parent-child relationship is terminated.” In re S.L.H.S., 885 N.E.2d 603, 618
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Generally, adoption is a satisfactory plan. Id.
[13] Again, Parents make virtually no argument on this issue, conceding that
“[s]everal witnesses testified that the plan for the Children was adoption” and
that “case law is not in their favor in regards to arguing against adoption being
a satisfactory plan” for the care and treatment of the Children. Appellants’ Br.
at 22. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that DCS has a
satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, which is adoption.
[14] In sum, DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
termination of parental rights. Accordingly, the trial court’s termination order
is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 10 of 11
[15] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 85A02-1710-JT-2386 | February 13, 2018 Page 11 of 11