In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.T., Je.T., and Jo.T. (Minor Children) and J.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 04 2020, 6:19 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Larry D. Stassin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re the Termination of the May 4, 2020
Parent-Child Relationship of: Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JT-2586
A.T., Je.T., and Jo.T. (Minor
Children) and Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court Juvenile Division
J.T. (Father),
The Honorable Thomas P.
Appellant-Respondent, Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
45D06-1902-JT-36, 45D06-1902-
JT-37, 45D06-1902-JT-38
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 1 of 17
Case Summary
[1] J.T. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights with respect to his
minor children, A.T. (born June 16, 2011), Je.T. (born January 19, 2013), and
Jo.T. (born September 2, 2016). He claims that the judgment must be set aside
because the trial court’s determination that the conditions that led to the
children’s removal would not be remedied was clearly erroneous, and the
evidence failed to demonstrate that terminating his parental rights was in the
children’s best interest.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In August 2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) received
reports that five-year-old A.T. and three-year-old Je.T. and their two older
siblings were dirty and unkempt, and that Mother and Father (collectively, the
parents) had not enrolled the older children in school. There were also
allegations that the home was filthy and in a deplorable condition. As a result
of these reports, DCS Family Case Manager Rebecca Ramone went to the Lake
County residence on August 12, 2016 to speak with the parents.
[4] When Ramone arrived, she noticed an open well in the side yard. All four
children were dirty and two of them were in soiled diapers. Ramone observed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 2 of 17
holes in the floors, ceilings, and walls of the residence, and clutter throughout.
There was a broken window in the home, and Ramone noticed that the kitchen
plumbing was leaking. There was only plywood on the floors in the living
room. The parents’ bedroom contained a litter box that was overflowing with
cat feces. Ramone also discovered the body of a decomposing dog in the
basement.
[5] There was very little food in the house, and Father told Ramone that he was
unable to clean the residence because of an alleged medical condition that he
did not disclose. Father explained that he had mental health issues and
Ramone saw some medications on a nightstand that were within the children’s
reach. Father also told Ramone that the residence was “on the condemned list”
and that he had agreed with the landlord to clean the property and “bring it up
to code” in exchange for rent. Transcript at 26, 31.
[6] The children were removed from the household and placed in protective
custody following Ramone’s visit. 1 Mother—who was eight months
pregnant—remained at the residence with Father. On August 16, 2016, DCS
filed petitions alleging that the children were in need of services (CHINS). DCS
developed a plan for the parents and recommended parenting assessments,
1DCS also removed two older siblings from the residence, K.T. (born December 27, 2001)
and B.J.T. (born July 3, 2007) and filed CHINS petitions for them as well. Father is the father
of KT. and B.J.T., but Mother is not their mother. This appeal only concerns children A.T.,
Je.T, and Jo.T.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 3 of 17
random drug and alcohol screens, home-based casework services, and
supervised visitation with the children.
[7] On September 2, 2016, Mother gave birth to Jo.T., who was subsequently
removed from the residence on November 9, 2016, because the parents
continued to reside in the house that had been condemned and no
improvements had been made to the property. DCS filed a CHINS petition
with respect to Jo.T. the next day.
[8] At some point, case manager Xavia Collins visited the residence and observed
that there was no stove in the kitchen, a broken toilet in the bathroom, and
clutter throughout the residence and the garage. There was no running water in
the house and no mattresses for the children. Father told Collins that he
worked three jobs, but Collins was never able to verify Father’s employment.
Father also stated that he suffered from depression and ADHD but he did not
always take his prescribed medications because they made him feel badly.
[9] The children were adjudicated CHINS on May 2, 2017. That same day, the
trial court ordered both parents to undergo clinical and parenting assessments,
home-based casework services, supervised visitation, and random drug screens.
Father was also ordered to participate in and complete further counseling and
therapy recommendations.
[10] The parents initially participated in DCS services and the children were
returned to the residence on a trial basis in June 2017 after it was determined
that some of conditions in the home had improved. However, the children
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 4 of 17
were removed again in September 2017 because they were dirty, unkempt, and
had lice, and the residence remained on the condemned list. Father became
hostile and aggressive, and the police had to separate Father and the DCS
caseworker during the removal process.
[11] Father failed to complete the home-based casework that would have assisted
him with budgeting and finding appropriate housing, employment, and
community resources. Mother rarely attended therapy sessions and she
eventually became totally non-compliant. She had substance abuse and mental
health issues and suffered emotional and physical abuse by Father. Mother was
never able to achieve sobriety, and she admitted to using methamphetamine
since she was twelve years old. A therapist believed that Mother would not
commit to therapy or make herself available for DCS services. Mother’s
visitations with the children were stopped in September 2018 due to her lack of
compliance with scheduled visits.
[12] Although Father was offered services in an attempt at reunification with the
children, he consistently resisted the various service providers and case
managers. Even though Father completed the recommended assessments, he
often became angry with the providers and case manager, and the police
became involved on a number of occasions. The children were fearful of
Father’s anger issues and while Father sporadically participated in counseling
sessions, three consecutive therapists closed his case for noncompliance. It was
noted that Father “exploded, verbally screamed, and stormed out of the room”
during some of the family team meetings. Transcript at 78. Father discontinued
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 5 of 17
therapy sessions in September 2017. Father was also physically, emotionally,
and sexually abusive to Mother and at some point, Mother had obtained a
protective order against Father. Father was incarcerated from April 2 to April
19, 2018 for physically abusing Mother.
[13] On February 5, 2019, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother and Father’s
parental rights. On September 26, 2019, the juvenile court held an evidentiary
hearing on DCS’s petition. The evidence showed that Father never had
appropriate housing throughout the pendency of the proceedings. At the time
of the termination hearing, Father was living in Illinois, had not made a rent
payment for two months, and admitted that his residence would not be
appropriate for the children.
[14] Various agencies facilitated visitation between the parents and the children.
Those agencies ultimately discontinued services because Father was hostile,
uncooperative, and he made repeated threats to the staff. One of the agencies
discontinued its visitation services because of the domestic violence incident
involving Mother.
[15] According to DCS caseworkers, Father made almost no progress throughout
the pendency of the three-year CHINS case. At the time of the termination
hearing, Father was on probation for committing intimidation against a police
officer. Collins testified that DCS had exhausted all efforts with regard to
Father and that Father was still unable to parent the children. Therapist
Maritza Perez had worked with A.T. and Je.T. since February 2019. She
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 6 of 17
testified that both children have an unhealthy relationship with Father. A.T.
had tantrums and screamed and hit and kicked others, but her behavior
substantially improved after she moved into her current foster home.
[16] Perez testified that Father visited with the children only once or twice a month
and exhibited inappropriate behavior during those visits. Moreover, A.T. was
afraid of upsetting Father, and Je.T.’s anxiety about Father resulted in physical
symptoms and behavioral issues at school.
[17] A.T. had been living in one foster home for more than a year until her
placement was changed in July 2019. The first set of foster parents were not
able to handle A.T.’s “outbursts.” Transcript at 95. Jo.T. was in a separate, pre-
adoptive foster home for nearly one year, but his foster parents eventually told
Collins that they were afraid of Father and they no longer wished to adopt Jo.
T.
[18] A.T. and Jo.T. were subsequently placed in a foster home together on July 3,
2019, where they have remained. A.T. loves her new school and gets along
well with the other foster children in the home. Je.T. has been in a foster home
with her older sister K.T. since September 22, 2017. Je.T.’s foster parents are
meeting her needs, and she is enrolled in extracurricular activities.
[19] Collins testified that adoption was in the children’s best interests because Father
did not have appropriate housing, and the foster parents in both homes
provided nurturing homes and stable environments for the children. Collins
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 7 of 17
added that the children were thriving in their foster homes and that both sets of
foster parents planned to adopt the children in their care.
[20] On October 3, 2019, the trial court entered the following order terminating the
parental rights of both Father and Mother:
There is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in
the removal of the children from the parents’ home will not be
remedied in that: The Department of Child Services became
involved with the family due to deplorable home conditions. The
investigation confirmed the home to be unsuitable. The home
was observed to have numerous holes in the floors, ceilings and
walls. The kitchen sink was leaking and had a bucket under it.
There were numerous flies throughout the home. The children’s
mattresses were stacked in the rooms. There were multiple
animals in the home with feces throughout. The basement was
full of water and the home contained strong odor. There was an
open well in the backyard of the residence that was a danger to
the children. The children had poison ivy and severe lice. The
children were dirty and the youngest child was in a soiled diaper.
. . . The . . . home was on the condemn list for the city.
...
Neither parent is providing any emotional or financial support
for the child[ren]. Neither parent is in a position to properly
parent these children. The children are . . . extremely bonded
and thriving in their placement.
...
After numerous attempts at reunification, the children remain
outside of the parents’ care. The original allegations of neglect
have not been remedied by the parents. Neither of these parents
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 8 of 17
have demonstrated an ability to independently parent the
children and provide the necessary care, support and supervision.
There is no basis for assuming the parents will complete the
necessary services and find one or both of themselves in a
position to receive the children back into the home. For over
three years, the parents failed to utilize the available services and
make the necessary efforts to remedy the conditions, which led to
intervention by DCS and the Court.
...
The children continue to reside in a stable foster home which has
indicated both a willingness and ability to adopt all the children.
It would be unfair to the children to delay such permanency on
the very remote likelihood of the parents committing to and
completing services.
The Court finds that after three years, in these cases, [the
children] certainly have a right to permanency.
There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the
parent—child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the
children in that: for the reasons stated above. Additionally, the
children deserve a loving, caring, safe, stable and drug free home.
It is in the best interest of the children . . . that the parent-child
relationship between the children and his [sic] parents be forever
fully and absolutely terminated.
The Indiana Department of Child Services has a satisfactory plan
for the care and treatment of the children which is Adoption.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 9 of 17
Appendix Vol. II at 22-24. Father now appeals. 2
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[21] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge witness credibility. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1132 (Ind.
2010). We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most
favorable to the judgment. Id. We must also give “due regard” to the trial
court’s unique opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Indiana
Trial Rule 52(A).
[22] The trial court is required to “enter findings of fact that support the entry of the
conclusions” terminating “the parent-child relationship.” Ind. Code § 31-35-2-
8(a), (c). When the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions in
terminating parental rights, we apply a two-tiered standard of review when
reviewing that determination. First, we determine whether the evidence
supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support
the judgment. I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1132. We will set aside the trial court’s
judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. In re B.C., 441 N.E.2d 208, 211 (Ind.
1982). A judgment is “clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial
2
[1] Although Mother had appeared at the initial hearing and the trial court appointed counsel
for her, she never met with counsel and failed to appear at the termination hearing. She is not
a party in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 10 of 17
court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.” I.A., 934
N.E.2d at 1132.
[23] We note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their
children. Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). A parent’s interest in the
care, custody, and control of his or her children is “perhaps the oldest of the
fundamental liberty interests.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).
Indeed, the parent-child relationship is “one of the most valued relationships in
our culture.” Neal v. DeKalb Cnty. Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280,
285 (Ind. 2003). We recognize of course that parental interests are not
absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s interests when determining the
proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. In re D.D., 804
N.E.2d 258, 264-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Thus, “[p]arental rights
may be terminated when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their
parental responsibilities.” Id. at 265.
[24] I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) requires that a petition to terminate a parent-child
relationship involving a child in need of services must allege that:
(A) one (1) of the following exists:
(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 . . . that reasonable efforts
for family preservation or reunification are not required,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 11 of 17
including a description of the court’s finding, the date of
the finding, and the manner in which the finding was
made; or
(iii) the child has been removed from the parent and has
been under the supervision of a county office of family and
children for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent
twenty-two (22) months;
(B) there is a reasonable probability that:
(i) the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal or the
reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will
not be remedied; or
(ii) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses
a threat to the well-being of the child;
(C) termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.
[25] DCS bears the burden of proving these allegations by clear and convincing
evidence. Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1234
(Ind. 1992).
II. Father’s Claims
A. The Children’s Removal
[26] Father claims that the trial court erred in granting the termination of parental
rights because DCS failed to prove that there is a reasonable probability that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 12 of 17
conditions regarding the children’s removal from the parents’ home will not be
remedied. In reviewing such a determination, we engage in a two-step analysis.
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). First, we identify the conditions that
led to removal; and second, we determine whether there is a reasonable
probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. In the second step, a
parent’s fitness is judged as of the time of the termination proceeding, taking
into consideration evidence of changed conditions—balancing a parent’s recent
improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there
is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. Habitual
conduct may include a parent’s criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse,
history of neglect, failure to provide support, and a lack of adequate housing
and employment. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
[27] DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it must
establish that there is a reasonable probability that the parent’s behavior will not
change. In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 18-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We
entrust that delicate balance to the trial court, which has discretion to weigh a
parent’s prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before
termination. Id. Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions
does not preclude them from finding that a parent’s past behavior is the best
predictor of future behavior. Id.
[28] In this case, the reasons for the children’s initial removal from the residence
were the deplorable, unsanitary, and dangerous conditions of the home, along
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 13 of 17
with the dirty and unkempt conditions of the children. The residence was on
the condemned list and was set to be demolished. In addition to the structural
defects, animal odor was prevalent in the residence and there was the body of a
decomposed dog in the basement. There was medication within the children’s
reach, a minimal amount of food in the household, and no stove. Although
Father told Collins that he worked three jobs, DCS was never able to verify
Father’s employment.
[29] Even after the children were returned on a trial basis, the parents showed no
sustained improvement. As a result, the children were removed from the home
again in September 2017 because the residence remained on the condemned list
and the children were dirty, unkempt, and had lice.
[30] Father had been incarcerated for domestic violence against Mother, and when
the children were initially removed from the residence, the police had to
intervene and hold him back because he charged the caseworker. Father was
also aggressive during the removal after the trial home visit, and the police had
to physically separate Father and Collins. Father was uncooperative and
hostile at family team meetings, and he stopped attending counseling and
therapy in September 2017.
[31] The conditions that resulted in the children’s removal were no different at the
time of the termination hearing. Father was living in Illinois, and he admitted
that the residence was not appropriate for the children. Moreover, Father had
failed to pay rent for two months, and he was not meeting even a minimum
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 14 of 17
standard of cleanliness in the home. At the time of the termination hearing,
Father was on probation for committing the offense of intimidation against a
police officer.
[32] Collins testified that Father required continued therapy because he has not
successfully dealt with his anger issues, and he poses a danger to those around
him. Perez testified that A.T. and Je.T. have an unhealthy bond with Father
and the visits did not go well. Moreover, the visits were only sporadic and
Father saw the children only once or twice a month.
[33] In sum, Father’s habitual unwillingness or inability to address his anger issues,
employment and housing concerns, and his failure to participate in court-
ordered services and visitations with the children all demonstrate “the requisite
reasonable probability” that the reasons for the children’s removal were
unlikely to change. See Lang v. Starke City OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied. Thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that
there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the children’s
removal will not be remedied.
B. Best Interests of the Children
[34] Father next claims that the termination order must be set aside because the
evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that termination of the
parent-child relationship is in children’s best interests. When deciding whether
termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests, the trial court must
look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 15 of 17
evidence. Z.B. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 108 N.E.3d 895, 903 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2018). In doing so, the court must subordinate the interests of the parents
to those of the children involved. Id. The court need not wait until a child is
irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. We
have previously held that the recommendation by both the case manager and
child advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the
conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by
clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.
A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158-59.
[35] In this case, DCS caseworkers and the therapist recommended termination of
the parent-child relationship and adoption for the children. Collins testified that
DCS had exhausted all of its efforts with regard to Father, that Father was still
unable to parent the children, and that adoption was in the children’s best
interests. Collins further testified that Father did not have appropriate housing,
was unable to maintain the housing he did have because he was behind in rent,
and the current foster parents provided nurturing homes and stable
environments for the children. Collins added that the children were thriving in
foster care and that both sets of foster parents planned to adopt the children.
Perez also testified that adoption of the children by their foster parents was in
the children’s best interest.
[36] These recommendations, along with the evidence demonstrating Father’s lack
of progress, his continuing anger issues, his lack of employment, his inability to
provide adequate housing for the children, and his unwillingness to participate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 16 of 17
in court-ordered family services, establish that termination and adoption are in
the children’s best interests. See id.; see also Ramsey, 707 N.E.2d 814, 818 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating Father’s
parental rights.
[37] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-2586 | May 4, 2020 Page 17 of 17