In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.S. (Minor Child) and X.S. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) , 100 N.E.3d 723 ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 18 2018, 10:55 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kyle K. Dugger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General
Bloomington, Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Involuntary April 18, 2018
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of A.S. (Minor 53A01-1710-JT-2340
Child) Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
and Court
The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin,
X.S. (Father), Judge
Appellant-Respondent, Trial Court Cause No.
53C07-1607-JT-472
v.
Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 1 of 12
Case Summary
[1] X.S. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter,
arguing that the trial court should have granted his motion to continue the
termination hearing. We agree and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] This is an appeal from the termination of Father’s parental rights by Monroe
Circuit Court 7, but the case revolves around Father’s history of drug-related
criminal charges in Monroe Circuit Court 2. In 2007, Father was charged with
Class B felony possession of cocaine (“Case 1186”). He pled guilty and was
sentenced to twenty years with ten years suspended. He was released to
probation in March 2012. Two years later, in April 2014, Father was charged
with Class D felony possession of cocaine, Class D felony strangulation, and
Class A misdemeanor domestic battery (“Case 468”). At the same time, the
State petitioned to revoke Father’s probation in Case 1186. Father pled guilty
as charged in Case 468 and was sentenced to one year in Community
Corrections, to be served on home detention. The court also ordered Father to
serve one year of his suspended sentence in Case 1186 on home detention,
running consecutive to the sentence in Case 468, for a total of two years on
home detention.
[3] On December 9, 2014, while Father was serving his home-detention sentence,
his daughter, A.S., was born. At birth, A.S. exhibited drug-withdrawal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 12
symptoms, so hospital staff ran a drug screen, which came back positive for
cocaine. The Department of Child Services (DCS) was contacted and began
working with Father and A.S.’s mother.1 DCS offered the parents substance-
abuse treatment through its Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Team (START)
program. Both parents, however, continued to use illegal drugs and failed drug
screens. On December 22, two weeks after A.S. was born, DCS removed her
from the home. The next day, DCS filed a child in need of services (CHINS)
petition in Circuit Court 7.
[4] One week after A.S. was removed from the home, Father was arrested for
violating the terms of his home detention in Case 468. However, Circuit Court
2 allowed him to continue serving his sentence on home detention. In January
2015, Father voluntarily completed a substance-abuse evaluation, and it was
recommended that he begin intensive outpatient treatment (IOP). On February
12, a hearing was held on the CHINS petition, Father admitted to the
allegations, and A.S. was adjudicated a CHINS. A dispositional hearing was
scheduled for March 9. Before that hearing, Father voluntarily began IOP.
After the dispositional hearing, the court ordered Father to participate in
services with DCS, including individual therapy, IOP, and supervised visits
with A.S.
1
A.S.’s mother consented to A.S. being adopted and is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we discuss
only the facts relevant to Father’s appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 3 of 12
[5] DCS was in the process of setting up services for Father when, on April 27, he
was arrested and charged with three counts of dealing in cocaine, a Level 5
felony (“Case 397”). The charges were pending for fifteen months, and the
record includes very little information regarding what transpired in the CHINS
case over this time. We only know that Father remained incarcerated at the
Monroe County Jail, that he exercised visits with A.S. every sixty days, and
that he completed eight sections of a cognitive-skills workbook that focused on
cognition mapping, traditional versus criminal values, relationships, personal
inventories, boundaries, and anger management. Tr. Vol. II p. 39.
[6] In July 2016, Father pled guilty to one count of dealing in cocaine in Case 397.
Circuit Court 2 sentenced Father to four years in the Department of Correction
(DOC) and also ordered him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence
in Case 1186—nine years—consecutive to his sentence in Case 397, for a total
of thirteen years. The State recommended Father for Purposeful Incarceration,
which is a nine-to-eleven-month program for “chemically addicted offenders”
whose addictions “are directly related to their criminal behavior.” Purposeful
Incarceration, www.in.gov/idoc/2798.htm. The program combines group and
individual counseling to address substance-abuse recovery, rational thinking,
criminal lifestyles, dysfunctional families, work stress, anger management, and
relapse prevention. Tr. Vol. II pp. 40-41. The court followed the State’s
recommendation, referred Father to Purposeful Incarceration, and stated that it
would “modify Defendant’s sentence if he successfully complete[d] Purposeful
Incarceration.” Father’s Ex. 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 4 of 12
[7] Less than a week after Father was sentenced in his criminal cases, DCS
petitioned to terminate his parental rights in Circuit Court 7. A termination
hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2017. Ten days before that hearing, DCS
moved to continue, and the hearing was reset for April 24. On April 24, DCS
sought another continuance, and the court rescheduled the hearing for July 6.
The trial court, on its own motion, continued the hearing until July 31. On July
10, Father moved to continue because of DCS’s failure to meet discovery
deadlines, and DCS joined his motion. The hearing was once again
rescheduled, this time for September 5. Father sought another continuance on
August 24, stating that he would graduate from Purposeful Incarceration on
September 29 and that the criminal court had guaranteed him a sentence
modification upon graduation. He asked that the hearing be scheduled after he
completed Purposeful Incarceration. The trial court denied Father’s motion,
and the termination hearing was held on September 5.
[8] The morning of the hearing, Father renewed his motion to continue, but his
request was denied. Father attended the hearing telephonically because in-
person attendance “could cause a delay in graduating from” Purposeful
Incarceration. Tr. Vol. II p. 4. Father testified that he expected to be released
from prison by the end of 2017 based on his completion of Purposeful
Incarceration. Father believed he would be released to a transitional housing
program and that he would be re-hired by his former employer. Regarding
A.S., Father continued to have supervised visits with her every sixty days in
prison and had not missed a visit. They ate together, read, and played. At the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 5 of 12
visit before the termination hearing, A.S. waved goodbye to Father and blew
him a kiss.
[9] Family Case Manager (FCM) Branan Neeley stressed that Father’s release date
was still listed as 2022 and that he had an “extensive criminal history”
involving cocaine. Id. at 36. FCM Neeley stated that Father had not
participated in any services with DCS because he had been incarcerated since
April 2015. At the time of the arrest, DCS was working on getting Father’s
services in place, but it had not made any referrals for him. See id. at 33.
However, FCM Neeley acknowledged that Father had completed eight sections
of the cognitive-skills workbook while in jail and was about to graduate from
Purposeful Incarceration.
[10] FCM Neeley emphasized that Purposeful Incarceration does not specifically
address parenting skills. However, when asked about Father’s parenting skills,
FCM Neeley said that he had never observed Father with A.S. He admitted
that all of the reports he had received about Father’s parenting were positive:
Father asks A.S. age-appropriate questions, asks DCS case workers about A.S.’s
development and routine, and is attuned to A.S.’s needs during visits. FCM
Neeley said, “[T]here [have] never been any concerns about his appropriateness
with [A.S.], his discussions with her, um and that kind of stuff.” Id. at 42.
FCM Neeley also acknowledged that A.S. is affectionate toward Father during
their visits, sitting in his lap while he reads to her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 6 of 12
[11] Throughout the duration of the CHINS and termination proceedings, A.S. has
been placed with the same foster-care family. The home was pre-adoptive and
DCS’s plan was for A.S. to be adopted by the family should Father’s parental
rights be terminated. After the hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact
and conclusions and terminated Father’s parental rights to A.S.
[12] Father now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[13] Father raises two issues on appeal. First, he claims that the trial court should
have granted his motion to continue. Second, he argues that the evidence is
insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights. Because we agree
with Father that the trial court should have granted his continuance, we do not
address his second argument or take a position on the merits of the decision to
terminate his parental rights.
[14] Generally, the decision to grant or deny a motion to continue is within the
sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of
discretion. In re J.E., 45 N.E.3d 1243, 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.
An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s conclusion is clearly against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the
reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. When a
motion to continue has been denied, an abuse of discretion will be found if the
moving party has demonstrated good cause for granting the motion, but we will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 7 of 12
reverse the trial court’s decision only if the moving party can show that he was
prejudiced by the denial. Id.[15] Father analogizes his situation to that of the father in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh
County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans.
denied. In Rowlett, the father was arrested and charged with dealing in
methamphetamine two months after his children were adjudicated CHINS.
The father was unable to participate in services with the Office of Family and
Children (OFC) because of his incarceration, but he participated in “nearly
1,100 hours of individual and group services” directed at reunification with his
children. 841 N.E.2d at 622. The OFC petitioned to terminate the father’s
parental rights while he was incarcerated. At a pre-trial conference in January
2005, the father informed the court that he would be released in June 2005 and
asked that the termination hearing be set after his release. The court denied his
request and set the hearing for April 2005, approximately six weeks before the
father’s release date. The father’s parental rights were terminated.
[16] The father appealed and claimed that the trial court abused its discretion when
it denied his motion for continuance. He argued that he should have been
given the opportunity to engage in reunification services and establish himself
within his community. The OFC, on the other hand, stated that the children
had been removed from the father for over two years and needed permanency.
The children had been placed with their maternal grandmother for the duration
of the CHINS and termination proceedings, and the OFC’s plan was for her to
adopt the children if the father’s rights were terminated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 8 of 12
[17] This Court held that good cause for granting the father’s continuance existed
because it would have granted him an opportunity to “participate in services
offered by the OFC directed at reunifying him with his children upon his release
from prison.” Id. at 619. The OFC would have to wait only six weeks for the
father to be released. We also held that the father was prejudiced by the
decision because the trial court assessed his ability to care for his children “as of
the date of the hearing he sought to have continued.” Id. We went on to say
that termination was “particularly harsh where Father, while incarcerated,
participated in numerous services and programs . . . which would be helpful to
him in reaching his goal of reunification with his children.” Id. Because the
OFC’s plan was for the children to be adopted by the maternal grandmother
and they had been in her care since removal, we concluded that continuation of
the termination hearing “would have little immediate effect upon the children.”
Id. We ultimately concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
the father’s motion for continuance and that the hearing should have been reset
“after Father was given a sufficient period following his release to demonstrate
his willingness and ability to assume parental duties.” Id. at 620.
[18] We agree that Father is situated similarly to the father in Rowlett. First, like the
father in Rowlett, Father was on the verge of significant, favorable change in his
incarceration status. He was twenty-four days shy of graduating from
Purposeful Incarceration, which would result in a guaranteed sentence
modification. Second, any additional delay in the termination proceedings
would not negatively impact A.S. Similar to the children in Rowlett, A.S. has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 9 of 12
been in the same foster home since her removal, and DCS’s plan was for her
foster parents to adopt her if Father’s parental rights were terminated. A.S. was
also bonded with Father and was affectionate toward him, sitting in his lap
when he read to her and blowing him kisses and waving goodbye. For these
reasons, we conclude that good cause existed at the time of Father’s motion and
that the trial court should have continued the case at least long enough to see if
Father graduated from Purposeful Incarceration and, if so, the extent to which
Circuit Court 2 modified his sentence.
[19] Father has also shown that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion. The
denial allowed DCS to argue repeatedly, and the court to find, that Father
would not be released from prison until 2022, even though everyone involved
knew that there was a very good chance that Father would be released much
sooner. Like the father in Rowlett, Father was judged as an incarcerated parent,
rather than as a parent whose incarceration status was about to change. See id.
at 619.
[20] DCS contends that Rowlett is distinguishable from this case for two reasons.
First, it claims that “unlike in Rowlett, Father had the opportunity to participate
in reunification services. Instead, Father chose criminal activity over the
opportunity to engage in reunification services and parent [A.S.].” Appellee’s
Br. p. 16 (citations omitted). But Father had no more of an opportunity to
engage in reunification services than the father in Rowlett. Both Father and the
father in Rowlett were arrested two months after their CHINS adjudication
hearings and remained incarcerated for the duration of their CHINS and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 10 of 12
termination proceedings. As we did in Rowlett, we credit Father for the efforts
he has taken while incarcerated to better himself and reunify with A.S.; he
completed multiple sections of a cognitive-skills workbook and was about to
graduate from Purposeful Incarceration. DCS’s argument is also flawed
because Father did voluntarily engage in services before his arrest. Specifically,
he completed a substance-abuse evaluation and began IOP. To the extent that
he did not participate in additional services, FCM Neeley testified that, at the
time of Father’s April 2015 arrest, DCS had not yet set up any services for
Father.
[21] DCS also emphasizes that the father in Rowlett had an imminent release date
when his termination hearing was held, whereas Father’s release date was
approximately five years away. DCS acknowledges that Father would “likely
receive a sentencing modification for completing Purposeful Incarceration” but
contends that the extent of the modification was uncertain. Id. at 15 (emphasis
added). Initially, we note that the modification of Father’s sentence wasn’t just
“likely”; it had already been promised should Father graduate from Purposeful
Incarceration. Circuit Court 2 explicitly “agree[d] to modify Defendant’s
sentence if he successfully complete[d] Purposeful Incarceration.” Father’s Ex.
1. And while we acknowledge that the extent of the expected modification was
unknown, we do not find the distinction to be dispositive. Even though
Father’s anticipated release date was 2022 at the time of the hearing, it is
undisputed that he was on track to graduate from Purposeful Incarceration in
less than one month and that he would then receive a potentially significant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 11 of 12
modification of his sentence. Because of this, Circuit Court 7 should have
continued the case long enough to see if Father completed Purposeful
Incarceration and, if so, the extent of the sentence modification granted by
Circuit Court 2. If the modification made Father’s release date imminent, a
Rowlett-style continuance would have been in order, giving Father the
opportunity to engage with DCS and demonstrate his willingness and ability to
parent A.S.2 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the termination of Father’s
parental rights and remand for further proceedings.
[22] Reversed and remanded.
May, J., and Altice, J., concur.
2
A review of the dockets in Case 397 and Case 1186 shows that Father did graduate from Purposeful
Incarceration and that his sentence was modified. On October 10, 2017—thirty-five days after Father’s
continuance was denied—the DOC submitted a “Progress Report, Treatment Summary, and Release
Recovery Plan” to Circuit Court 2. A sentence-modification hearing was held, and on December 6, the court
found Father was eligible for Re-Entry Court and referred him to that program. The Re-Entry Court
accepted Father’s case and ordered that Father was to be released from prison, that he was to participate in
the Community Transition Program, and that the remaining sentences in Cases 397 and 1186 be stayed.
Father was released from prison on January 22, 2018. Father is expected to be released from the Community
Transition Program on May 21, 2018, and is to continue participating in Re-Entry Court until January 2020.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 12 of 12