In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: V.R. (Minor Child) and J.R. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 31 2020, 9:51 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
A. David Hutson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Hutson Legal Attorney General of Indiana
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Involuntary January 31, 2020
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of: 19A-JT-1967
V.R. (Minor Child) Appeal from the Clark Circuit
Court
and
The Honorable Vicki Carmichael,
J.R. (Father), Judge
Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Joni L. Grayson,
Magistrate
v. Trial Court Cause No.
10C04-1904-JT-20
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 10
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] J.R. (“Father”) and C.H. (“Mother”) had a daughter, V.R. (“Child”). Father
appeals the termination of his parental rights to Child, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination.1
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Child was born on March 9, 2017. In August 2017, Child was living with
Mother. At that time, there was a pending Child in Need of Services
(“CHINS”) case concerning a different child of Mother’s, and Mother was
subject to drug screens. After Mother submitted three positive screens for
methamphetamine and amphetamine, the Clark County Department of Child
Services (“DCS”) obtained an emergency order removing Child from Mother’s
care. Child was placed with a family friend. Mother and Father admitted that
Child was a CHINS and they agreed to place Child with Father. In September
2017, the trial court accepted the admission, adjudicated Child a CHINS, and
placed Child in Father’s care. On October 4, 2017, the trial court entered a
dispositional order in which it required Father to successfully complete family-
1
Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. She does not actively participate on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 10
preservation programming, keep appointments with service providers, refrain
from using illegal substances, submit to random drug screens, and obey the law.
[4] Father met with a fatherhood-engagement service provider for an initial intake.
He did not attend the next appointment and did not respond to the service
provider’s attempts to reach him throughout October 2017. In December
2017—when Child was approximately nine months old—Child was removed
from Father’s care because Father “began having positive drug screens,” testing
positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Tr. at 52.2 When Child was
removed, Father told DCS he was willing to complete a substance-abuse
assessment, which, at that point, was not court-ordered. He did not obtain the
assessment. After being removed, Child was placed in foster care, and Father
was permitted supervised visits with Child. His participation was inconsistent.
[5] In July 2018, the permanency plan was changed to adoption. The court also
modified its dispositional order, requiring Father to complete a substance-abuse
assessment and follow recommendations. Father did not complete the
assessment. During the CHINS matter, Father was periodically arrested on
outstanding warrants. He was also incarcerated from February 2019 to June
2019, and he pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. There is
evidence that Father “continued to screen positive for illegal substances” and
has “not made any attempts to address those issues.” Id. at 61.
2
All of our citations to the Transcript refer to Volume 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 10
[6] On April 29, 2019—at which point Father was incarcerated and Child was two
years old—DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. The trial
court held a fact-finding hearing in July 2019, and, on August 28, 2019, entered
its written order terminating Father’s parental rights. Father now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] “A parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is
‘perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.’” Bester v. Lake Cty.
Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). “Our General Assembly has thus set a high
bar for terminating parental rights.” In re Bi.B., 69 N.E.3d 464, 465 (Ind. 2017).
[8] Under Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2), a petition seeking to terminate the
parent-child relationship must allege, in pertinent part:
(A) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at least
six (6) months under a dispositional decree. . . .
(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.
(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 10
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of
the child.
[9] The petitioner must prove each element by clear and convincing evidence. Ind.
Code § 31-37-14-2. If the court determines the allegations are true, “the court
shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a). In doing so,
the court must enter findings and conclusions, irrespective of whether the
parties have requested them. See I.C. § 31-35-2-8(c); Ind. Trial Rule 52. We
will not “set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous,” T.R.
52(A); clear error is “that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made,” Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592
N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992). In reviewing for clear error, we look to
“whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support
the judgment.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016). Moreover,
we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, In re R.S.,
56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016), and we give “due regard . . . to the opportunity
of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” T.R. 52(A).
[10] Here, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights in August 2019. The
evidence indicates that Child has been removed from Father’s care since
December 2017—for well over six months. Furthermore, there is evidence that
the plan is adoption, which is a satisfactory plan. See In re R.L.-P., 119 N.E.3d
1098, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Thus, there is sufficient evidence supporting
termination under subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(D) of the termination statute.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 10
Remedied Conditions
[11] As to subsection (b)(2)(B), when considering the likelihood that conditions
resulting in the Child’s removal will not be remedied, the trial court must
evaluate “the parent’s fitness at the time of the termination hearing, ‘taking into
consideration evidence of changed conditions.’” In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641, 647
(Ind. 2015) (quoting Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 152). “Changed conditions are
balanced against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a
substantial probability of future neglect.” Id. “Habitual conduct may include
‘criminal history . . . [and] drug and alcohol abuse. . . .’” Id. (quoting In re
A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.). Further,
when evaluating the probability of future neglect, a court may consider “the
services offered to the parent and the parent’s response to those services.” Id.
[12] Here, there is evidence Child was removed from Father’s care because Father
submitted a positive drug screen for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
There is also evidence that Father “continued to screen positive for illegal
substances.” Tr. at 61. Moreover, DCS elicited testimony that Father had been
incarcerated from February 2019 to June 2019, and that Father “pleaded guilty
to a possession of methamphetamine charge during that stint[,] the February to
June stint, in Jackson County.” Id. In its termination order, the trial court
determined there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in
Child’s placement outside Father’s home would not be remedied, observing
that Father “failed to demonstrate that he can provide [Child] with a safe, sober
and healthy home.” App. Vol. II at 10. The trial court further found that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 6 of 10
Father “continued to use drugs throughout the CHINS proceeding” and
“committed a criminal offense during the CHINS proceeding.” Id. at 11.
[13] Father challenges the sufficiency of evidence that he used drugs. Father argues
that the family case manager “did not explain when or how many
times . . . [Father] tested positive for illegal substances, nor did she explain
what, if anything, he tested positive for.” Br. of Appellant at 14. Yet, the
family case manager testified that Child was removed because Father “began
having positive drug screens.” Tr. at 52. When asked what Father was testing
positive for, she replied: “Methamphetamine and amphetamine.” Id. She later
testified that Father “has continued to screen positive for illegal substances.”
Id. at 61. We are not at liberty to reweigh this evidence of ongoing drug use.
[14] Father also challenges the sufficiency of evidence that he committed a drug
offense during the CHINS proceedings. Father argues that the evidence
regarding the timing of his plea of guilty “does not establish the time of his drug
use, if any,” and there is not clear and convincing evidence Father was “using
drugs while the CHINS case was pending.” Br. of Appellant at 15. However,
even if DCS did not establish when the pleaded-to criminal offense occurred,
there is evidence that Father continued to screen positive for drugs. See, e.g.,
Lever Bros. Co. v. Langdoc, 655 N.E.2d 577, 583 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“To the
extent that the judgment may be based on erroneous findings which are
superfluous and not fatal to the judgment, the judgment may be upheld if the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 7 of 10
remaining valid findings and conclusions support the judgment.”).3 There is
also evidence that Father failed to participate in a court-ordered substance-
abuse assessment. As to that assessment, the family case manager testified that
Father sometimes expressed interest in complying with the dispositional order.
When Father expressed interest, the case manager—on three occasions—went
over the CHINS order with Father and “ma[d]e sure [Father] understood what
he was required to do.” Tr. at 59. The case manager told Father “who his
referrals were through” and “ma[d]e a phone call to make sure those were still
good [referrals] and [Father] could still participate.” Id. Despite having the
necessary information, Father never completed the court-ordered assessment.
[15] It was illicit drug use that led to Child’s removal from the home. We conclude
that clear and convincing evidence supports findings related to Father’s ongoing
issues with substance abuse. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in
determining that conditions leading to removal were not likely to be remedied.4
Best Interests
[16] “In determining the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look
beyond the factors identified by DCS and to consider the totality of the
3
As to the timing of the offense, in its brief, DCS speculates that the court took judicial notice of the record
in the Jackson County case. In his reply brief, Father argues that taking judicial notice of that record—
whether by the trial court or now on appeal—would be improper. In any case, we need not refer to Jackson
County records to conclude that there is sufficient evidence supporting the termination of parental rights.
4
Father challenges other findings, including those related to his parenting skills. As we have identified
findings related to substance abuse that are supported by the evidence and support the court’s determination
under Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B), we need not address the other challenged findings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 8 of 10
evidence.” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
“In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of
the child involved.” In re K.R., 133 N.E.3d 754, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
[17] Here, there was evidence that Father was periodically incarcerated, with a
continuous period of incarceration from February 2019 to June 2019. There
was also evidence that Father pleaded guilty to a drug-related offense during the
pendency of the CHINS matter. The trial court ordered Father to complete a
substance-abuse assessment—and, prior to that point, Father volunteered to
complete a substance-abuse assessment—but Father failed to follow through.
Moreover, the evidence indicates that Father “continued to screen positive for
illegal substances.” Tr. at 61. As to his relationship with Child, Father was
inconsistent in attending supervised visits. Child was removed from Father’s
care when she was nine months old. Child was more than two years old at the
time of the fact-finding hearing, having spent the majority of her life in foster
care. See In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273, 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (expressing
an unwillingness to put a child “on a shelf” until a parent is ready). There was
evidence that Child was bonded to Father in May 2018. However, as the case
progressed and Father was incarcerated for several months in 2019, “the
relationship . . changed,” with it taking Child longer to “warm up” to him. Tr.
at 40. There was testimony that the parent-child relationship “kind of got off
track since [Father] hasn’t been around and things haven’t been consistent.” Id.
[18] The family case manager recounted Father’s actions over the course of the
CHINS proceedings and testified that Father had not demonstrated the ability
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 9 of 10
to provide Child with a safe and stable environment. The family case manager
specifically noted Father’s “lack of participation in services,” including that
Father “continued to screen positive for illegal substances” and had “not made
any attempts to address those issues.” Id. at 61. The family case manager also
noted that Father had demonstrated a pattern of being incarcerated: “He’s had
multiple incarcerations throughout the case for a couple days . . . with the
exception with [sic] the long stint of February of 2019 to June of 2019.” Id.
Having reflected on the lack of progress during the proceedings, the family case
manager recommended that the trial court terminate Father’s parental rights.5
[19] We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion that terminating Father’s parental rights is in Child’s best interests.
[20] Sufficient evidence supports the decision to terminate Father’s parental rights.
[21] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
5
Father asks this Court to revisit a line of cases supporting the proposition that, “if the record supports that
the conditions resulting [in] a child’s removal . . . will not be remedied, all that is necessary to establish that
termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child’s best interest is the ‘recommendation’ of the DCS
case manager and court-appointed advocate for the child.” Br. of Appellant at 25 (citing, as an example, In re
A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158-59). As we do not rely on the challenged proposition in conducting our best-
interests analysis, we decline Father’s request to reconsider this line of cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1967 | January 31, 2020 Page 10 of 10