In the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.S. & L.S. (Minor Children) and M.S. (Mother) & J.S. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 30 2016, 8:36 am
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 FATHER ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Thomas G. Krochta Gregory F. Zoeller
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR MOTHER Robert J. Henke
David E. Corey
Erin L. Berger
Deputy Attorneys General
Evansville, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- August 30, 2016
Child Relationship of A.S & L.S. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Children) and M.S. 82A01-1601-JT-210
(Mother) & J.S. (Father), Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Appellants-Respondents, Superior Court
The Honorable Brett J. Niemeier,
v. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
The Indiana Department of 82D04-1508-JT-1521
Child Services, 82D04-1508-JT-1522
Appellee-Petitioner
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 1 of 17
[1] M.S. (“Mother”) and J.S. (“Father”) appeal the involuntary termination of their
parental rights to minor sons A.S. and L.S. (collectively “the Children”).
Mother and Father separately raise one issue, which we restate as whether the
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) presented sufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s termination order.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Mother and Father are the biological parents of L.S., born on January 2, 2004
and A.S., born on May 26, 2008. On April 1, 2014, DCS filed petitions alleging
that the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”) based on a
domestic violence incident that occurred on March 19, 2014, which led to
Father’s arrest and subsequent incarceration. That same day, Mother admitted
that the Children were CHINS and Father stipulated to the evidence on April
22, 2014. After Father’s stipulation, the trial court adjudicated the Children as
CHINS and ordered him to contact family case manager, Dawn Moore
(“Moore”) within twenty-four hours of being released from incarceration.
[4] During the domestic violence incident, Father was drunk, threatened and
scratched Mother with a knife, and then trashed the house. This all occurred
while the Children were upstairs asleep. At this time, the Children were staying
with Mother.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 2 of 17
[5] On April 16, 2014, Mother was charged with possession of a controlled
substance and driving as a habitual traffic violator. The court set a dispositional
hearing in the CHINS cases for April 29, 2014, at which Mother failed to
appear. As a result, the trial court ordered the Children to be removed from
Mother’s care and placed in foster care and then issued a bench warrant for
Mother. The next day, the court determined that the Children’s detention was
necessary due to Mother’s incarceration.
[6] On May 7, 2014, the trial court held a dispositional hearing, took the petition
for parental participation under advisement, and ordered Mother to participate
in visitation with the Children. Another hearing was held on July 2, 2014, and
the trial court ordered Mother to participate in parent aide services, receive a
substance abuse evaluation, participate in parenting education classes, remain
drug and alcohol free, and submit to random drug screens. The trial court took
the domestic violence counseling under advisement but it was later stricken
from Mother’s parental participation agreement on July 30, 2014. That same
day, the trial court ordered Father to submit to random drug screens. The court
later modified its parental participation order to Father on January 28, 2015,
and ordered him to cooperate with the parent aide program, obtain a substance
abuse evaluation and follow recommended treatment, attend outpatient
substance abuse program, participate in visitation, remain drug and alcohol
free, and attend domestic violence classes.
[7] Shortly after the Children were removed, Mother went on a binge because it
was her birthday. She admitted that she partied and did drugs for about one
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 3 of 17
month. On May 7, 2014,1 Mother tested positive for methamphetamine,
hydrocodone, oxycodone, and THC. Mother also failed to comply with drug
screens, and the family case manager Moore did not know Mother’s location
from July 2014 until April 2015. Mother failed to attend the DCS referred
substance abuse treatment classes and stopped visiting the Children on July 10,
2014, because she was “on the run” from police due to warrants for her arrest.
Tr. p. 32. Before that, Mother visited the Children seven times between May
and July 2014, but cancelled twice and did not show up five times. Mother also
did not complete the parent aide services or the parenting classes, and her home
remained in a deplorable condition with “huge mounds of dog feces” in
numerous rooms and no electricity. Tr. p. 91.
[8] Mother was arrested on a bench warrant on March 9, 2015. She was released
on bond, but was arrested several more times between April and September
2015 for failure to appear in court. On March 26, 2015, Mother admitted to
violating probation and was sentenced to concurrent two year terms served at
Vanderburgh County Community Corrections (“VCCC”), a local work release
facility.2 On April 21, 2015, the trial court determined that Mother was
incarcerated and awaiting sentencing and Father had missed numerous drug
screens and visitation with the Children. The court also approved concurrent
1
This was the same day as the dispositional hearing.
2
Mother violated probation twice for bringing illegal substances and testing positive for alcohol while at
VCCC. Mother’s App. p. 27.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 4 of 17
permanency plans of reunification and adoption. In May 2015, Mother
requested visitation with the Children, but the request was denied based on the
recommendations of the Children’s therapists.
[9] Like Mother, Father failed to complete court ordered substance abuse
treatment, failed to attend numerous drug screens, and twice failed to complete
“parenting belief” classes. Throughout the CHINS cases, Father tested positive
for alcohol even though he had been ordered to remain drug and alcohol free.
Father visited the Children for a brief period at the beginning of the CHINS
cases and three times between March and May 2015. However, between
August 2014 and March 2015, Father did not visit or inquire about visiting the
Children.
[10] On August 28, 2015, DCS filed petitions for termination of parental rights
concerning both children. On September 21, 2015, the trial court changed the
permanency plan to termination of parental rights and adoption. The trial court
then held an evidentiary hearing on DCS’s termination petitions on November
12, 2015.3
[11] Mother admitted to being involved with DCS on two prior CHINS cases.4 She
acknowledged that she had active warrants at this time and had drug issues as
3
Father was incarcerated at the time of the evidentiary hearing on felony intimidation and operating while
intoxicated convictions with an anticipated release date of August 5, 2016. Mother was incarcerated at
VCCC with an anticipated release date of February 2016.
4
One of the cases involved an older daughter and the other case involved the Children in 2011 due to Mother
and Father’s substance abuse issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 5 of 17
well. Mother also stated that she stopped visiting the Children and contacting
DCS after being released on bond because she was afraid that family case
manager Moore would turn her into the police because she was “on the run.”
Tr. p. 32. Even though she was not visiting the Children, Mother testified that
she took a trip to Kings Island with her aunt and aunt’s two children while she
was out on bond. Mother also acknowledged that she has a criminal history
involving substance abuse.5 She admitted that her driver’s license has been
suspended for life but explained that “there are ways around that now.” Tr. p.
45.
[12] Although Mother admitted she has struggled with substance abuse in the past
and did not remain drug and alcohol free during the CHINS proceedings, she is
now sober and working since being incarcerated. Mother also reported
receiving substance abuse treatment from Counseling for Chance and attending
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
[13] Father admitted to continued substance abuse issues that started in 2009.
During the CHINS proceedings, Father stated that he drank more than five
drinks two to three times per week, which resulted in failed drug screens. Father
also discussed his criminal history, which again like Mother’s is linked to
5
In December 2011, Mother was convicted of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated (“OWI”), OWI in a manner that endangers person, and OWI with a controlled substance in
body. In February 2014, Mother was convicted of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, Class C
misdemeanor OWI, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, endangering a person’s life. In August
2014, Mother was convicted of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class D felony
operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 6 of 17
substance abuse.6 Father visited the children until he bonded out of jail. Then
he stopped the visits because he ran from the police until he was arrested again.
Father admitted that he is not currently in a position to parent the Children but
asked the court to give Mother another chance. Tr. p. 80. Father then alleged
that the court system had failed him and Mother for being too lenient in
sentencing and that if they were incarcerated sooner it would have “open[ed]
our eyes.” Tr. p. 81.
[14] Family case manager Moore has known Mother and Father since the beginning
of the 2014 CHINS cases. Moore testified that after Mother failed to show up
for the dispositional hearing that she visited her home.7 Moore found the home
trashed. There was food caked on the stove, trash piled up everywhere, and dog
feces all over the floor. Tr. p. 90. Moore discovered Mother hiding in the
shower, fully clothed, and trying to avoid being detected. When Moore
returned to Mother’s home three months later, the house was in even worse
condition with no electricity. Further, Moore stated that Mother stopped
visiting the Children in July 10, 2014, did not complete the parent aide services,
and did not attend the substance abuse counseling or “parenting belief” classes.
6
On May 20, 2014, Father pleaded guilty to Class D felony intimidation and Class A misdemeanor invasion
of privacy based on the domestic violence that led to the Children’s removal. Father was drunk at the time of
this incident. However, the court withheld judgment on each count and placed Father on probation. In
December 2014, Father pleaded guilty to Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and served ten days in
jail. In May 2015, Father was arrested and charged with Level 6 felony OWI with a prior conviction.
7
Mother and Father lived at the same home, even though they are separated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 7 of 17
Moore stated that Father also was ordered to participate in numerous services
including a substance abuse evaluation. However, Father never completed it.
[15] Moore also stated that Mother requested visitation with the Children in May
2015. The request was denied based on the recommendations from the
Children’s therapists. Moore stated that “the Children had moved on with their
lives,” had made tremendous progress, and never asked to visit with Mother.
Tr. p. 94. Moore testified that termination is in the Children’s best interests
because they need permanency and have waited long enough. Moore also
stated that Mother has been involved with three CHINS cases in the past and
will return to the same behaviors and lifestyle. She also testified that Mother
had eight months prior to being incarcerated to visit the Children but put her
own needs first to go on a drug binge for her birthday. Tr. p. 95. Moore stated
that the Children need a family who they can count on, will take care of them,
and will meet all of their needs. Moore had no doubt that she would find a pre-
adoptive placement for the Children.
[16] Although CASA Ed Derringe (“CASA Derringe”) was not available to testify
at the evidentiary hearing, he submitted a report that was considered by the
court. Appellee’s App. pp. 2-4. Like family case manager Moore, CASA
Derringe also concluded that termination of Mother and Father’s parental
rights was in the Children’s best interests. CASA Derringe first met with
Mother and Father in May 2014. They stated that they would “do anything” to
get their kids back, but when DCS told them that they needed to submit to drug
testing and parenting classes they said “[there’s] no way we’re doing that.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 8 of 17
at 3. CASA Derringe observed that Mother and Father have made no effort in
the past year and a half to get their children back. Mother had not visited the
Children in over a year and Father visited the Children “seldom and
sporadically.” Id. At the visits, Father was out of touch with the Children. He
asked what grades they were in at one visit and brought a puppy to another
visit. CASA Derringe was concerned that Father was basically saying to the
Children that he could take care of a dog but not take care of them.
[17] CASA Derringe noted that after Mother was sentenced to work release that she
started asking about visits again, but after doing nothing for over one year,
termination was filed. He stated that the Children were doing well in foster care
and made great strides with their behaviors and studies. L.S. was almost a
straight “A” student and participated in sports. A.S. still struggled with his
behavior but was “light years ahead of last year.” Id. at 4. CASA Derringe
concluded that the Children had moved on with their lives after Mother and
Father had been absent over the last year and a half and that “putting them
back in their former situation would be a tragedy.” Id.
[18] After taking the matter under advisement, the court entered an order
terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights to the Children on January 13,
2016. Mother and Father now appeal.
Standard of Review
[19] We have long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving the
termination of parental rights. In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind. Ct. App.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 9 of 17
2011). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. We
consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the trial
court’s judgment. Id. 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. Id. In deference to the trial court’s
unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating
a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Clear error is that
which “leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” J.M. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 802 N.E.2d 40, 44 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.
Termination of Parental Rights
[20] “The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents but to
protect their children. Although parental rights have a constitutional dimension,
the law allows for their termination when parties are unable or unwilling to
meet their responsibility as parents.” In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 880 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004) (citation omitted). Indeed, parental interests must be subordinated
to the child’s interests in determining the proper disposition of a petition to
terminate parental rights. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2009).
[21] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b) provides that a petition to terminate parental
rights must meet the following requirements:
(2) The petition must allege:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 10 of 17
(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.
[22] However, Indiana Code section 4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive;
therefore, the trial court is required to find that only one prong of subsection
(2)(B) has been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.K., 924
N.E.3d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). DCS must prove “each and every
element” by clear and convincing evidence. G.Y., 904 N.E.2d at 1261; Ind.
Code § 31-37-14-2. Clear and convincing evidence need not establish that the
continued custody of the parent is wholly inadequate for the child’s very
survival. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147
(Ind. 2005). Rather, it is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence
that the child’s emotional development and physical development are put at risk
by the parent’s custody. Id. If the court finds the allegations in a petition are
true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-
2-8(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 11 of 17
I. Conditions that Led to Removal
[23] When making a determination as to whether a reasonable probability exists that
the conditions resulting in a child’s removal or continued placement outside of
a parent’s care will not be remedied, the trial court must judge a parent’s fitness
to care for her child at the time of the termination hearing while also taking into
consideration evidence of changed circumstances. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child
Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, the court can
“disregard the efforts . . . made only shortly before termination and to weigh
more heavily [a parent’s] history of conduct prior to those efforts.” In re K.T.K.,
989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013).
[24] The trial court is also required to consider the parent’s habitual patterns of
conduct in order to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of
the child. A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1157. The trial court may consider evidence of
a parent’s prior history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of
adequate housing and employment. Id. The trial court may consider the
services offered to the parent by DCS and the parent’s response to those services
as evidence of whether conditions will be remedied. Id. DCS is not required to
provide evidence ruling out all possibilities of change. Id. Instead it needs to
establish only that a “reasonable probability” exists that the parent’s behavior
will not change. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 12 of 17
A. Mother
[25] Mother argues that the trial court erred in determining that there was a
reasonable probability that she would not remedy the condition that led to the
removal of the Children and their placement outside of Mother’s care and
custody because at the time of the termination hearing she was participating in
drug treatment, was employed, was compliant with the terms of the work
release program, and requested services and visitation after being incarcerated.
[26] In this situation, the Children were removed due to issues with Mother’s and
Father’s substance abuse, Mother’s and Father’s criminal behavior, and
Mother’s and Father’s non-compliance with court orders and failure to
participate in services. While Mother appears to have made progress while
being incarcerated, prior to incarceration Mother had an opportunity to remedy
her substance abuse through a 2011 CHINS case involving the Children, failed
to participate in services, failed to visit the Children, went on a month long
binge of drug use because it was her birthday, failed to comply with the court’s
dispositional orders, ran from the police, engaged in criminal conduct, and even
tested positive for alcohol during work release.
[27] In its discretion, a trial court can “disregard the efforts . . . made only shortly
before termination and to weigh more heavily [a parent’s] history of conduct
prior to those efforts.” See In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1234. The trial court
acknowledged Mother’s progress and weighed it accordingly. Mother’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 13 of 17
argument here is simply a request to reweigh evidence, which is not within our
role as an appellate court. See In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 871.
B. Father
[28] Like Mother, Father argues that DCS did not present sufficient evidence to
support that Father would not remedy the conditions justifying removal of the
Children and their placement outside of Father’s care and custody. Specifically,
Father contends that while he has been incarcerated, he has not had the
opportunity to make substantial efforts to better his life through programs.
[29] As previously mentioned, the Children were removed due to issues with
substance abuse, Mother and Father’s criminal behavior, and Mother and
Father’s non-compliance with court orders and failure to participate in services.
Although Father claims he has not had the opportunity to participate in services
in jail, he testified that at the time of the evidentiary hearing he was
participating in a spiritual rehabilitation program called, “Celebrate Recovery.”
Tr. p. 77. Father emphasizes that he was not provided services while
incarcerated. This ignores the fact that he was offered comprehensive DCS
services, including substance abuse treatment and parenting classes, prior to
incarceration but failed to participate in those services, failed random drug
screens, and minimally visited the Children. Further, Father admitted to
“[being] under the influence of alcohol throughout the [CHINS proceedings].”
Tr. p. 81. Father is now sober, but he is incarcerated. He also admitted that he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 14 of 17
was not currently in a position to parent the Children but that Mother should be
given another chance. Tr. p. 80.
[30] Not only may the trial court consider a parent’s fitness to care for the child at
the termination hearing, but it also may consider services offered to the parent
by DCS and the parent’s response to those services as evidence of whether
conditions will be remedied. A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1157. Based on these facts
and circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining
that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the conditions
that led to the removal of the Children would not be remedied by Father.
II. Best Interests of the Children8
[31] When determining what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court must
look beyond the factors identified by DCS and look to the totality of the
evidence. A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158. In doing so, the court must subordinate
the interests of the parent to those of the child. Id. The court need not wait until
the child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship.
Id. A recommendation by the case manager or child advocate to terminate
parental rights is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that
8
Both Mother and Father challenge the court’s determinations that continuation of the parent-child
relationship would pose a threat to the well-being of the Children and that termination was in the best
interests of the Children. However, their arguments are not supported by cogent reasoning as required by
Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Although these arguments are waived, we will still address the best
interests argument. However, we decline to address the continuation of parent-child relationship because
Indiana Code section 4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive and we have already concluded that the
conditions that led to removal were not remedied by either Mother or Father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 15 of 17
termination is in the child’s best interests. Id. at 1158-59. Permanency is a
central concern in determining the best interests of a child. Id. at 1159.
[32] As with her argument that the conditions that led to removal have been
remedied, Mother argues that she has made progress, and therefore, it is not in
the best interests of the Children to terminate her parental rights. Father also
repackages his argument about remediation of the conditions that led to removal,
claiming that he has not had a chance to participate in services in jail as a reason
why it is not in the Children’s best interests to terminate his parental rights.
[33] The Children were removed after a domestic violence situation that resulted in
criminal charges for Father and then several weeks later Mother failed to attend
a dispositional hearing for the Children’s CHINS cases. Family case manager
Moore found Mother hiding in the shower, fully clothed, when she came to
notify her that the Children were being removed from her care. After the
Children were removed, both Mother and Father’s participation in visitation
was limited. They also failed to participate in services. At the time of the
termination hearing, Mother had not seen the Children in over one year and
Father had not seen them since around June 2015.
[34] Both family case manager Moore and CASA Derringe expressed that
termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best
interests. Case manager Moore emphasized that Mother and Father had prior
opportunities to participate in substance abuse treatment from a previous CHINS
case involving the Children. Moore also noted that Mother and Father had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 16 of 17
opportunities to participate in services before they both were incarcerated but
consistently failed to do so. CASA Derringe stated that the Children are doing
well in foster care and have made great strides with their behaviors and studies.
He also emphasized that the Children had moved on with their lives and that
“putting them back in their former situation would be a tragedy.” Appellee’s
App. p. 4. Based on the recommendations of Moore and Derringe, we cannot
conclude that the trial court erred in determining that termination of Mother and
Father’s parental rights to the Children was in the best interests of the Children.
Conclusion
[35] Mother and Father have a long history with substance abuse issues that has
negatively impacted the Children. Both Mother and Father show a clear pattern
of running from the police to avoid incarceration. Mother has put her own
needs before the needs of the Children as evidenced by her month-long binge of
drug use to “celebrate her birthday.” She also failed to attend numerous court
hearings regarding her criminal charges. Neither Mother nor Father
participated in services or visited the Children when they had the opportunity to
do so before they were incarcerated. Applying our highly deferential standard of
review, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision to terminate Mother
and Father’s parental rights to the Children was clearly erroneous.
[36] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1601-JT-210 | August 30, 2016 Page 17 of 17