In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.H., A.H., E.H., and M.H. (Minor Children), and S.F. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 11 2018, 9:09 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Melinda K. Jackman-Hanlin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Greencastle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Patricia C. McMath
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Involuntary October 11, 2018
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of: T.H., A.H., 18A-JT-898
E.H., and M.H. (Minor Appeal from the Putnam Circuit
Children), Court
and The Honorable Matthew L.
Headley, Judge
S.F. (Mother),
Trial Court Cause Nos.
Appellant-Respondent, 67C01-1708-JT-14
67C01-1708-JT-15
v. 67C01-1708-JT-16
67C01-1708-JT-17
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 1 of 9
Baker, Judge.
[1] S.F. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her relationship with
four of her children. Mother argues that the evidence is insufficient to support
the order. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Mother and J.H. (Father) are the parents of four children: T.H., born in May
2009; A.H., born in February 2011; E.H., born in August 2013; and M.H., born
in July 2014. Mother also has two older children who have a different father
and who are not part of this case.
[3] This family has been involved with the Department of Child Services (DCS)
before. When T.H. was one month old, Mother broke his arm, resulting in an
informal adjustment with DCS. Then, A.H. and T.H. were removed from their
home in Illinois from January 2012 through November 2013, becoming wards
of Illinois during that period. The reason for that removal and wardship was
domestic violence between the parents.
[4] On May 29, 2015, Indiana DCS received a report alleging that the four children
were victims of neglect after Mother and Father engaged in domestic violence
while the children were present in the home. As a result of the incident,
Mother had significant bruising and one of her older children had scratches
down his back after Father pushed him into a door frame. Mother admitted
that she and Father had a history of domestic violence. Both parents were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 2 of 9
arrested following the incident; Mother eventually pleaded guilty to
misdemeanor battery.1
[5] The DCS investigator observed the children in the home on the date of the
altercation. M.H. and E.H. were dirty. M.H. had a burn on her left thumb, red
knots on the top and left side of her head, a bruise on her right cheek, a linear
bruise on the right side of her back, and a scratch on her arm. T.H. had
scratches on his arms, chest, and legs, a large linear bruise on his leg, and an
engorged tick on his head. T.H. gave conflicting stories about how he got the
bruise and scratches, ultimately saying that he was not allowed to talk about
how he got them and admitting that Mother had hit him with a baseball bat.
A.H. had a bruise on his left knee and he reported that Mother had hit him with
a baseball bat. He also stated that his parents fight a lot and that they hit and
kick each other. The children did not have any beds; instead, they slept on
blankets on the floor.
[6] On June 1, 2015, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children were children in
need of services (CHINS) because of domestic violence and the bruising found
on the children. The children were removed from the parents’ care and custody
and placed in foster care. Both parents admitted to the allegations in the
CHINS petition and the trial court found the children to be CHINS. On July 7,
1
Father was convicted of battery as a result of this incident. Additionally, at the time of the termination
hearing in this case, he was facing charges of felony domestic battery and strangulation on his new wife in
Vigo County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 3 of 9
2015, the trial court entered a dispositional order requiring Mother to, among
other things, participate with random drug screens, a parenting assessment, a
mental health evaluation, a domestic violence assessment, and a substance
abuse assessment. Mother was later referred to home-based counseling and
anger management services.
[7] Over the course of the CHINS case, Mother was largely compliant with services
but failed to make significant progress on most issues. She regularly tested
positive for marijuana, often exhibited anger towards the children during visits,
quit her job, and failed to maintain independent housing. As recently as one
month before the termination hearing, Mother continued to yell at the children
during visits and frequently ended visits early by storming off in anger.
Mother’s visits never progressed to unsupervised and the children were never
returned to her care.2
[8] On August 2, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parent-child
relationship between Mother, Father, and the children. The termination
hearing took place on October 19, 2017, and February 12, 2018. On March 13,
2018, the trial court issued its order terminating the parent-child relationships.
Mother now appeals.3
2
The children did briefly return to Father’s care, but they were returned to foster care after he engaged in
domestic violence with his new wife.
3
Father has not appealed the termination order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 4 of 9
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[9] Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence does not support the trial
court’s termination order. Our standard of review with respect to termination
of parental rights proceedings is well established. In considering whether
termination was appropriate, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess
witness credibility. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229
(Ind. 2013). We will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that
may be drawn therefrom in support of the judgment, giving due regard to the
trial court’s opportunity to judge witness credibility firsthand. Id. Where, as
here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not
set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. In making that
determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly
supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the
judgment. Id. at 1229-30. It is “sufficient to show by clear and convincing
evidence that the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened by
the respondent parent’s custody.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children,
839 N.E.2d 143, 148 (Ind. 2005).
[10] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) requires that a petition to terminate
parental rights for a CHINS must make the following allegations:
(A) that one (1) of the following is true:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 9
(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at
least six (6) months under a dispositional decree.
(ii) A court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-5.6
that reasonable efforts for family preservation or
reunification are not required, including a
description of the court’s finding, the date of the
finding, and the manner in which the finding was
made.
(iii) The child has been removed from the parent and
has been under the supervision of a local office or
probation department for at least fifteen (15) months
of the most recent twenty-two (22) months,
beginning with the date the child is removed from
the home as a result of the child being alleged to be
a child in need of services or a delinquent child;
(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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 9
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment
of the child.
DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.
K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230.
II. Reasons for Removal
[11] Mother’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by finding that
there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the initial and
continued removal of the children from her care and custody will not be
remedied.4
[12] The reason that the children were originally removed from Mother’s care and
custody was two-fold: domestic violence between the parents and the bruises
found on some of the children. Mother notes that she and Father are no longer
together; consequently, she maintains that domestic violence is no longer a
concern. We note that the end of one relationship does not preclude domestic
violence from arising in a future relationship if the underlying issues are not
addressed. Regardless, even if we accept for argument’s sake that domestic
violence is no longer an issue in this case, the other condition resulting in the
initial removal—Mother’s anger issues and physical abuse of the children—
continues to be a cause of significant concern.
4
Mother briefly mentions the other elements of the termination statute but does not make any argument
related to them.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 7 of 9
[13] Indeed, Mother’s behavior with the children during visits is part of the reason
they have continued to be removed from her care. She frequently yelled at the
children during visits and stormed off in anger, ending the visits prematurely.
This behavior occurred as recently as December 2017, in between the two days
of the termination hearing. She continually favored the youngest child, M.H.,
often ignoring the three older boys and failing to show them affection. The trial
court found, based on these facts, that Mother “failed to demonstrate a
minimally-acceptable level of anger control when dealing with her children and
others.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 26.
[14] In addition to Mother’s inability to control her anger when with the children,
they continued to be removed from her care because of issues related to her
financial stability and sobriety. While Mother was able to maintain
employment and independent housing for a time during the CHINS case, she
quit her job several months before the termination hearing, remained
unemployed, and was living with her grandmother. She also failed to comply
with the trial court’s directive to refrain from drug use, testing positive for
marijuana regularly throughout the CHINS case.
[15] Mother emphasizes that she largely complied with court-ordered services. We
do not disagree with that statement, but note that although she participated, she
failed to benefit from those services. See In re A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005) (mere participation with services does not establish that
conditions have been remedied if the services do not result in the needed change
and the parent does not acknowledge a need for change). Mother did not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 8 of 9
benefit in any significant way from substance abuse treatment, home-based
counseling, or anger management services. The simple truth is that Mother had
over two years to work towards remedying the conditions that resulted in her
children’s removal, but she failed to do so, and it is not fair to the children to
make them live in limbo indefinitely. See, e.g., In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273,
275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (holding that a court is not required to place children
on a shelf until a parent is able to care for them properly).
[16] We find that the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that
there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the initial and
continued removal of the children from Mother’s care and custody will not be
remedied. Therefore, the trial court did not err by terminating the parent-child
relationship.
[17] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 9