In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.T., V.T., and D.T. (Minor Children) J v. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 20 2019, 8:58 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
Ronald J. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
The Moore Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Richmond, Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re the Termination of the December 20, 2019
Parent-Child Relationship of Court of Appeals Case No.
R.T., V.T., and D.T. (Minor 19A-JT-1553
Children); Appeal from the Randolph Circuit
J.V. (Mother), Court
The Honorable Jay L. Toney,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
68C01-1809-JT-157
68C01-1809-JT-158
The Indiana Department of
68C01-1809-JT-159
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] J.V. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with
her children R.T. (“R.T.”), V.T. (“V.T.”), and D.T. (“D.T.) (collectively, “the
children”). She argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the
terminations. Specifically, Mother argues that the Department of Child
Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is
a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children. Concluding that
there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child
relationships, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
[2] We affirm.
Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient
evidence to support the terminations.
Facts
[3] Mother is the parent of son R.T., who was born in 2006; daughter V.T, who
was born in 2008; and son D.T., who was born in 2010. DCS removed the
children from Mother’s care in October 2015 because of domestic violence and
improper supervision. The children were adjudicated to be Children in Need of
Services (“CHINS”) in November 2015. The trial court ordered Mother to: (1)
1
The trial court also terminated Father’s (“Father”) parental rights. Father, however, is not a party to this
appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6
enroll in programs recommended by professionals; (2) keep all appointments
with providers; (3) obtain and maintain suitable housing and a legal means of
income; (4) assist in the formulation and implementation of a plan to protect
the children from abuse and neglect; (5) abstain from the use of illegal
controlled substances; (6) complete a parenting assessment; (7) submit to
random drug screens; (8) participate in home-based counseling; (9) complete a
parenting assessment, and (10) attend supervised visits with her children.
[4] Three years later, Mother still had not complied with the trial court’s order. In
September 2018, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights.
Testimony at the termination hearing revealed that Mother: (1) had continued
to test positive for illegal substances; (2) was unable to control her children
during visitation; and (3) had not obtained suitable housing. At the time of the
hearing, Mother was living with a boyfriend who had molested both R.T. and
V.T. at different times. Although the abuse had been substantiated, Mother did
not believe that it had occurred. She planned to continue living with her
boyfriend because that was her home.
[5] The testimony further revealed that R.T. and D.T. were living with their
paternal grandparents, and the plan for their care and treatment was adoption
by the grandparents. V.T. was living with a foster family, and the plan for her
care and treatment was also adoption by the foster parents. The testimony also
revealed that V.T.’s foster parents had been so concerned about V.T.’s
outbursts, which included headbanging and biting herself, that they had
scheduled and paid for V.T. to participate in a diagnostic program. According
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6
to CASA Teresa Ramsey (“CASA Ramsey”), the foster parents had been
“desperate to get some help for [V.T.].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). CASA Ramsey also
testified that termination and adoption were in the children’s best interests.
[6] Following the hearing, the trial court issued detailed ten-page orders
terminating the parental relationships between Mother and R.T., V.T., and
D.T. Mother now appeals the terminations.
Decision
[7] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), 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. Id. at
1188. Termination of the 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.
[8] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is
required to allege and prove, 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 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6
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. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d
1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).
[9] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh
the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625,
628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences
to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the
trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand.
K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.
[10] Here, Mother’s sole argument is that DCS failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that it had a satisfactory plan for the children’s care and
treatment. She specifically argues that “[v]ery little evidence was offered
regarding placement’s relationships with the children.” Mother’s Br. at 12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[11] This Court has previously explained that the plan for the care and treatment of
the children need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the
direction in which the children will be going after the parent-child relationships
are terminated. In re L.B., 889 N.E.2d 326, 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Here, the
plan for V.T. is adoption by her foster parents, and the plan for R.T. and D.T. is
adoption by their paternal grandparents. These are satisfactory plans. See In re
J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).2 Mother’s arguments
challenging these plans are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence. This we
cannot do. See In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d at 628. There is sufficient evidence to
support the termination of the parent-child relationships.
[12] Affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
2
Mother also argues that because DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had a
satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children, DCS has consequently failed to prove that it was
in the best interests of the children to have the parent-child relationships terminated. Because we have found
sufficient evidence that DCS had a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children, we need not
address this issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6