Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Jun 17 2013, 8:34 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JOANN M. PRICE EUGENE M. VELAZCO, JR.
Merrillville, Indiana DCS, Lake County Local Office
Gary, Indiana
ROBERT J. HENKE
DCS Central Administration
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD )
RELATIONSHIP OF: )
C.L.F., D.K.F. & C.S.F. (Minor Children) )
And, )
M.F. (Father) & C.J.F. (Mother), )
)
Appellants-Respondents, )
)
vs. ) No. 45A03-1210-JT-416
)
THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF )
CHILD SERVICES, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION
The Honorable Mary Beth Bonaventura, Judge
Cause Nos. 45D06-1202-JT-12
45D06-1202-JT-13
45D06-1202-JT-14
June 17, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
In this termination of parental rights appeal, the evidence demonstrated that
Mother refused to believe that Father had repeatedly molested two of their three children,
C.F. and D.F., (collectively, the Children) and one of his stepchildren, R.M., even though
the allegations were substantiated and criminal charges had been filed against Father.
Father claims that his due process rights were violated because he was not
transported to the termination hearing from the county jail, was not properly served with
the notice of the hearing, and was not appointed counsel by the juvenile court. However,
the evidence demonstrated that Father took no action to secure his presence at the
hearing, seek counsel, or request a continuance.
The evidence further established that the appellee-petitioner, Indiana Department
of Child Services (DCS), proved that there was a reasonable probability that the
conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal and that continuation of the parent-
child relationship were not remedied. The DCS also showed that termination of parental
rights was in the Children’s best interest and that the DCS had a satisfactory plan for the
care of the Children—namely adoption by the maternal grandmother. Thus, we affirm
the judgment of the juvenile court.
2
FACTS
On July 27, 2010, the DCS was notified about an incident of Father’s sexual abuse
that involved one of Mother’s children, R.M., who lived with the Parents and siblings
M.M., age 15, J.R. age 10, C.F. age 9, D.F. age 8, and C.L.F. age 7.1 R.M. was taken
from Mother’s care and custody that day, and the others were removed from the
residence the following day.
In September 2010, R.M. disclosed to her relatives that Father had, in fact, been
molesting her. R.M. indicated that the sexual abuse began when she was six years old
and continued until she turned thirteen. R.M. reported details of the molesting to the
DCS family case manager John Talley and to law enforcement officials about the
allegations. Several of the other children reported that they had witnessed some of the
incidents. R.M. participated in an interview where she again disclosed Father’s
molestation, including an incident when Father made her perform oral sex on him.
During the interview, R.M. further disclosed that Father’s friend, N.F., also abused her
while Father watched.2 R.M. and the other Children were subsequently placed in foster
care based on concerns for the Children’s safety in light of the sexual molestation
allegations.
The juvenile court established a case plan for reunification with Mother and the
Children. In particular, Mother was ordered to participate in parenting time, individual
1
Father is R.M., M.M., and J.R.’s stepfather.
2
The State filed criminal charges against N.F., which were pending at the time of the termination hearing.
Tr. p. 78.
3
and family therapy, parenting classes, and was ordered to complete a psychological
evaluation.
Father was charged with child molesting and is awaiting trial. However, Mother
denied the allegations and accused R.M. of lying about the incidents. Throughout the
proceedings, Mother continued to believe that her daughter lied about the sexual abuse
allegations and has no plans to be away from Father. Thus, all of the children were
removed in light of concerns for the Children’s safety.
The family began a history with the DCS in 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006. The
previous cases involved educational neglect, poor hygiene involving the Children, child
molestation, and instances of medical neglect. Three of these four previous cases were
substantiated.
At a CHINS proceeding that commenced on July 29, 2010, the parents were
ordered to participate in various services, including psychological examinations and
treatments, family counseling, and parenting classes. In October 2011, DCS family case
manager Tina Kozlowski filed a report alleging that Father had been molesting D.F.
During an interview, D.F. claimed that Father had taken him into a private room on at
least six occasions and performed anal sex on him. D.F. had been diagnosed with a mild
mental disability and participated in an individualized educational plan at school. D.F.
continued to wet and soil his pants and his physicians determined that the issue is not
physical. D.F. participated in family, individual, and sibling group therapy. In fact, D.F.
stated that he was afraid of Father.
4
Mother was very upset during the interview and stated there “was no way” that
Father could have molested D.F. because Father worked seventy hours per week and was
never home. Mother was convinced that R.M. had “swayed” D.F. to lie about the
incident. Tr. p. 55-56. Kozlowski was concerned that Mother was defending Father
because most parents are in a state of disbelief that this could happen to their child or
would want the perpetrator in jail.
Father denied molesting D.F. and even denied ever being alone with the child.
However, Father disclosed that he had inserted his fingers in D.F.’s anus several times
because D.F. had become constipated and he had to loosen the child’s stools.
Sometime in December 2011, C.F. alleged that Father had molested her as well.
C.F. had been diagnosed with ADHD and takes medications to address that condition.
C.F. reported that on one occasion, Father came into her bedroom when she was getting
ready for bed and put his hand down the back of her panties and then moved his hand
around to the front as he hugged her good night. At least one other incident occurred
after this one. The children all receive therapy, but C.F., in particular, participates in
specialized therapy to address the sexual abuse incidents and her anger issues. The
children are doing well in school and their maternal grandmother, with whom the
children were placed, satisfies their needs. In fact, the Children’s maternal grandmother
desires to adopt the Children.
Mother claims that she has a “healthy bond” with the Children, and she did not
believe that terminating her parental rights was in the Children’s best interests. In fact,
5
Mother believed that the Children being away from her had a negative impact on them.
Tr. p. 116.
DCS Family Case Manager Dianna Garner believed that termination of parental
rights was in the Children’s best interests based on Mother’s belief that Father was
innocent, her refusal to believe the Children’s reports, her inability to protect the Children
in light of her refusal to believe them about the molestation incidents, and her refusal to
take steps to protect them from Father or other sexual perpetrators in general. The DCS
case managers also believed that additional services offered to the Parents would not
assist them.
On May 5, 2011, the State filed six felony counts against Father that stemmed
from the molestation of R.M. from July 2004 to July 2010, including two counts of child
molestation, a class A and a class B felony. The State then filed additional molestation
charges against Father for molesting D.F. and C.F. These charges included child
molesting, a class A felony, and incest, a class B felony. The juvenile court suspended all
parenting time between the Children and Father, and Father was ordered to participate in
a sexual offender program.
On February 8, 2012, the DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights as to
the Children. Thereafter, on August 22, 2012, the juvenile court conducted an
evidentiary hearing on the termination petitions, where Mother appeared with counsel
and Father did not appear in person or by counsel. Father was incarcerated in the Lake
County Jail on the child molesting and incest charges.
6
DCS Family Case Manager Garner had been the family’s case manager since July
29, 2010. Until Father was arrested in May 2011, he had cooperated with the services
that DCS had offered and had participated in the individual therapy sessions. However,
Father refused to participate in the court-ordered sex offender treatment program based
on his counsel’s advice in the pending criminal cases.
In an effort to move towards reunification, DCS personnel stressed to Mother that
she needed to believe the Children and be willing to protect them. The DCS case
managers had several child and family team meetings to review these goals. During one
of these meetings in November 2011, the team members discussed a safety plan that
included Father moving from the residence. The Parents indicated that, while Father
would move out, he would just move back in once the case was closed. Family Case
Manager Garner believed that Mother would permit Father to have contact with the
Children and move back into the home.
Father discontinued individual therapy in December 2011 because he did not
believe that it was helping. Father did not visit the Children because of no contact orders
but participated in family therapy until that service was stopped after D.F. and C.F. had
lodged the molesting allegations against him.
Mother continued to participate in individual and family therapy, underwent a
psychological evaluation, took parenting classes, and exercised parenting time with the
Children. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother was still participating in
individual therapy and visitation with the Children. Laura Uzelac, who was mother’s
7
therapist from August 2010 to May 2012, had a goal of convincing Mother to believe her
Children and the allegations against Father. However, Mother rejected Uzelac’s
counseling and never considered that it was possible that Father abused R.J., D.F. and
C.F. Uzelac was concerned that Mother’s inability to believe her Children would prevent
her from keeping them away from their abuser. Mother maintained her disbelief about
Father’s allegations through May 2012, believed that there was a conspiracy against the
Parents, and was of the opinion that someone had brainwashed the Children. Mother’s
goal was to have Father released from jail so she could reunite the entire family.
However, Uzelac has described Mother as having a “blind trust” for Father because she
believed that he would never hurt any of the Children. Tr. p. 107-08.
On August 23, 2012, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights as to all of the Children. The juvenile court found, among other
things, that Mother made no efforts to protect her children and that the reunification
services failed because of Mother’s refusal to believe the allegations that had been made
against Father.
The Parents now appeal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISON
I. Father’s Due Process Rights, Generally
Father argues that his constitutional due process rights were violated because he
was not properly served with notice of the termination hearing, was not appointed
8
counsel, could not present evidence or cross-examine witnesses at the termination
hearing, and was not transported to the initial and fact finding hearings.
We initially observe that due process considerations in termination of parental
rights proceedings involve the balancing of three factors; (1) the private interests affected
by the proceedings; (2) the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and (3)
the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure.
C.T. v. Marion County DCS, 896 N.E.2d 571, 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The private
interests of a parent and the countervailing government interests are both substantial. Id.
at 587. The standard for determining what due process requires in a juvenile proceeding
is “fundamental fairness.” In re M.T., 928 N.E.2d 266, 270-71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
In addressing these claims, the record demonstrates that Father was served with
notice of the termination hearing while he was incarcerated in the Lake County Jail.
Although Father maintains that his due process rights were violated based on a failure to
receive notice of the hearing, he only presents this issue in his “Issues Presented for
Review” section of his appellate brief and does not further develop that claim.
Appellant’s Br. p. 12. As a result, Father has waived this contention. See Smith v. State,
822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (observing that a party’s failure to support
contentions with citation to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record, results in waiver
of the claims on review). Father has also failed to provide us with relevant
documentation in support of his claims. Thus, Father has waived his claim on this basis,
as well.
9
Finally, while Father asserts that his due process rights were violated because the
juvenile court failed to appoint counsel in the underlying CHINS proceeding, the record
does not support that argument because the orders from the detention hearing and initial
hearing on July 29, 2010, indicate that the juvenile court advised the Parents of their right
to counsel and neither requested the same. Father also did not contest the non-
appointment of counsel during those proceedings. Even more compelling, the Parents
retained private counsel who appeared with, and for the Parents, and filed various
motions on their behalf. Under these circumstances, Father’s contentions that his due
process rights were violated, fail.
II. Failure to Transport Father for Termination Proceedings
Father claims that the juvenile court’s failure to transport him to the termination
hearing from the Lake County Jail violated his due process rights because he was
prevented from presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, or participating in the
hearing. Appellant’s Br. p 5, 10.
Father does not have a constitutional right to be physically present at the
termination hearing. In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 922-23 (Ind. 2011). More specifically,
in C.G., our Supreme Court stated that whether or not an incarcerated parent is permitted
to attend a termination of parental rights hearing is within the juvenile court’s sound
discretion. In exercising that discretion,
the trial court judge should balance the following factors: (1) The delay
resulting from parental attendance; (2) the need for an early determination
of the matter; (3) the elapsed time during which the proceeding has been
10
pending; (4) the best interests of the child(ren) in reference to the parent’s
physical attendance at the termination hearing; (5) the reasonable
availability of the parent’s testimony through a means other than his or her
attendance at the hearing; (6) the interests of the incarcerated parent in
presenting his or her testimony in person rather than by alternate means; (7)
the [effect] of the parent’s presence and personal participation in the
proceedings upon the probability of his or her ultimate success on the
merits; (8) the cost and inconvenience of transporting a parent from his or
her place of incarceration to the courtroom; (9) any potential danger or
security risk which may accompany the incarcerated parent’s transportation
to or presence at the proceedings; (10) the inconvenience or detriment to
parties or witnesses; and (11) any other relevant factors.
Id. at 922-23.
In this case, the evidence shows that Father was aware, as of February 29, 2012,
that the DCS was proceeding with terminating his parental rights. Father was served with
a summons for the evidentiary hearing on May 21, 2012. The summons was not returned
and Father did not request the juvenile court to: 1) be transported to the hearing; 2)
appear for the hearing telephonically; 3) appoint counsel for him; or 4) grant a
continuance. Father did not request any additional relief.
The evidence demonstrates that Mother notified Father’s counsel in the criminal
case about the conflict with the hearing dates, but his attorney never contacted Mother,
the DCS, or the juvenile court. Tr. p. 21-22. Also, while Father had a scheduled hearing
in his criminal matter on the same date as the termination hearing, the DCS observes that
Father’s procedural history in the criminal matter indicates that he appeared at the
scheduled jury trial hearings on April 10, June 7, and August 22, 2012, and sought
continuances of the matter. Two of these requests for continuances occurred after Father
11
received the summons in May 2012 regarding the August 22, 2012, termination hearing.
Moreover, the record does not show that Father ever requested the criminal court to
transport him to the termination proceedings.
In sum, it is apparent that Father took no action either to secure his personal or
telephonic presence at the termination hearing, seek a continuance, or request any other
relief. Father’s explanations about the denials of the incidents of molestation were
presented to the juvenile court through the testimony of both witnesses and documentary
exhibits. Mother provided ample alternative explanations for the allegations, including
coaching, medication, mental deficiencies, a conspiracy theory, and poor relations with
maternal grandmother who wanted Father incarcerated. Father does not direct us to any
evidence that would support a result that is contrary to the termination of his parental
rights. As a result, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in proceeding with the
termination proceeding without transporting Father from the jail for the hearing.
III. Appointment of Counsel
Father next claims that the juvenile court erred in not appointing counsel for him
in the termination proceedings. As a result, Father contends that his due process rights
were violated on this basis.
In resolving this issue, we initially observe that the right to appointment of counsel
as a due process protection is not absolute. In re M.M., 733 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind. Ct. App.
2000). Indiana Code section 31-32-2-5 provides that a parent is entitled to representation
by counsel in proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship. However, in Baker
12
v. Marion County OFC, our Supreme Court explained that the United States Constitution
does not require the appointment of counsel in every parental rights termination
proceeding. 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1039 (Ind. 2004). Indiana has chosen to provide counsel
in termination proceedings to all indigent parents. Id. at 1039. Indiana Code section 31-
32-4-3 provides that if:
(1) A parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding does not have an
attorney who may represent the parent without a conflict of interest; and
(2) The parent has not lawfully waived the parent’s right to counsel under
Ind. Code 31-32-5 . . . the juvenile court shall appoint counsel for the
parent at the initial hearing or any earlier time.
Here, despite Father’s knowledge of the hearing date of August 22, 2012, Father
failed to act to secure his presence at the hearing, have counsel appointed for him, seek a
continuance, or to otherwise participate in the proceedings. Father also presented no
evidence to the juvenile court proving that he was indigent. Again, it appears that given
the procedural history in the criminal proceedings, Father knew that he was going to ask
for a continuance in that case. Appellant’s App. p. 20. However, Father did not seek a
continuance or take any action whatsoever in the termination proceedings. As a result,
we cannot say that Father’s due process rights were violated when the juvenile court did
not appoint counsel to represent him in the termination proceedings.
IV. Mother’s and Father’s Claims—Sufficiency: Termination of Parental Rights
The Parents both argue that their parental rights should not have been terminated
because the DCS failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability that the
13
conditions resulting in the Children’s removal could not be remedied. The Parents also
contend that the DCS’s evidence failed to establish that the continuation of the parent-
child relationship posed a threat to the Children, that termination was in the Children’s
best interests, and that the DCS had a satisfactory plan for the care of the Children.
A. Termination of Parental Rights—Standard of Review
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
traditional right of parents to raise their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65
(2000); Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind.
2005). But parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s
interest in 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). Thus, “parental rights may be
terminated when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental
responsibilities.” Id. at 265. The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish
parents but to protect their children. In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 880 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004).
When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260
(Ind. 2009). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are
most favorable to the judgment below. Id. Here, the juvenile court made specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order terminating parental rights.
14
Where the juvenile court enters specific findings and conclusions, we apply a two-
tiered standard of review. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147. We first determine whether the
evidence supports the findings, and then whether the findings support the judgment. Id.
We will not set aside the juvenile court’s judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. In re
A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). A judgment is clearly erroneous
when the evidence does not support the findings, or the findings do not support the result.
In re S.F., 883 N.E.2d 830, 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
The elements that the DCS must allege and prove by clear and convincing
evidence to effect the termination of parental rights are set forth in Indiana Code section
3l-35-2-4(b)(2), which provides:
(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.
(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 county office of family and children 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:
15
(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.
(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.
I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).
We note that Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4 (b)(2)(B) is written in the
disjunctive, which requires that only one of the sub-elements, under subsection (B), be
proven true by clear and convincing evidence. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1999).
B. Reasonable Probability—Children’s Removal
The Parents contend that the termination order must be set aside because the DCS
failed to adequately establish that the conditions resulting in the Children’s removal
would not be remedied and that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a
threat to the Children.
As noted above, because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the
disjunctive, the juvenile court need only find either that the conditions resulting in
removal will not be remedied or that the continuation of the parent-child relationship
poses a threat to the children. In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). As a
result, “where, as here, the [juvenile] court specifically finds that there is a reasonable
16
probability that the conditions which resulted in the removal of the [child] would not be
remedied, and there is sufficient evidence in the record supporting the [juvenile] court’s
conclusion, it is not necessary for [DCS] to prove or for the [juvenile] court to find that
the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the [child].” In re
S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 882.
When determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s removal will not be
remedied, the juvenile court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the
time of the termination hearing. In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
However, the juvenile court’s inquiry must also evaluate a parent’s habitual patterns of
conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child. Id.The juvenile court may properly consider a parent’s history of neglect, criminal
history, failure to provide support, lack of adequate housing, and lack of employment,
among other things. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. OFC, 798 N.E.2d 185, 199 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003). The juvenile court may also consider the services that the DCS has offered to a
parent and the response to those services. In re M.S., 898 N.E.2d 307, 311 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). The DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it need
establish “only that there is a reasonable probability that the parent’s behavior will not
change.” In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Parental rights may be
terminated when parties are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities. Ferbert v.
Marion Cnty., OFC, 743 N.E.2d 766, 776 9Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
17
We note that in various portions of their briefs, the Parents failed to support their
arguments with citations to the evidence, to any legal authority or statute, and have failed
to present a cogent argument supporting their assertions as Indiana Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a) requires. More particularly—and contrary to the Parents’ assertions—there
is nothing in the record that the juvenile court somehow avoided its responsibilities in
determining whether termination was in the Children’s best interests or whether the
conditions that resulted in their removal would be remedied. Rather, the juvenile court
specifically found that termination was in the Children’s best interests based on the
extensive findings regarding the abuse that the Children suffered and their siblings in
light of Father’s conduct, Mother’s unwillingness to believe the Children, and Mother’s
inability to protect them. Appellant’s App. p. 1-4.
The evidence established that Mother did not benefit from the services that the
DCS offered, particularly her therapy with Uzelac where the goal was to have Mother
believe the Children’s allegations against Father. Tr. p. 102-04, 120-22. As discussed
above, the DCS initially became involved in the case in July 2010 when R.M. reported
that Father had been sexually molesting her for the past six years and that Father had also
allowed his friend, N.F., to molest her. Id. at 28-31, 39, 77. R.M. disclosed that she had
informed Mother about Father’s actions, but she refused to believe her. Id. at 28-31, 41-
42.
Throughout the DCS’s involvement in this case, Mother did not believe the
Children and remained convinced that Father could not have committed these acts. Id. at
18
32, 43, 53-56, 76-77. In fact, Mother believed that there was a conspiracy against the
Parents, that someone had brainwashed the Children, and that none of the allegations
were true. Uzelac testified that Mother’s refusal to believe the Children would devastate
them and render them unable to go to her with other issues in the future. Tr. p. 107.
As noted above, Father was facing multiple criminal felony charges based on the
allegations of child molesting and incest. Ex. C, G. Although Father participated in
some of the services that the DCS offered, he refused to participate in sexual offender
treatment. Tr. p. 73. Also, even though Mother testified that Father would move from
the residence immediately, there was no evidence that he ever did. Instead, Mother’s
goal was to have Father released from jail to reunite the entire family. Id. at 105, 129.
The evidence also established that Mother was not able to protect the Children even
though she was at home. Ex. A, B.
Finally, the Parents have failed to demonstrate how that the juvenile court erred in
refusing to provide the Parents with additional time to demonstrate positive progress.
The evidence presented at the termination hearing showed that Mother’s inability to
parent the Children had not changed. Tr. p. 131-32, 154, 159, 183-85, 191-92, 256-57,
296-305, 309-10, 347-48. The juvenile court considered the evidence that was presented,
and could reasonably conclude that any of Mother’s recent efforts were unpersuasive
because of her continued belief that Father was innocent and the Children were lying.
Finally, the Parents are attempting to have the juvenile court reweigh the evidence
by alleging that Mother benefited from the DCS’s services, that the juvenile court
19
“exaggerated” the facts and discounted Mother’s efforts to protect the Children, and that
the DCS was “never fully committed to reuniting this family.” Mother’s Br. p. 7-10;
Father’s Br. p. 9-11.
In light of these circumstances, it is apparent to us that the Parents have failed to
make any positive changes. As a result, it was proper for the juvenile court to conclude
that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s
removal would not be remedied. Thus, we decline to disturb the juvenile court’s ruling
on this basis.
C. Best Interests
The Parents also assert that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile
court’s conclusion that terminating their parental rights was in the Children’s best
interest. Mother contends that she continues to enjoy visitation with the Children “and
that the Children have expressed interest and great desire in being with Mother.”
Mother’s Br. p. 10-11. Father claims that the Children’s best interests will not be served
when the Children realize “that they will no longer be a family.” Father’s Br. p. 11.
In determining a child’s best interests, the juvenile court is required to look
beyond the factors identified by the DCS and should consider the totality of the evidence.
In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The juvenile court need not wait
until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental, and social
development are permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship.
In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d at 545. Recommendations of the DCS case managers to
20
terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal
will not be remedied, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests. J.S., 906 N.E.2d at 236.
A parent’s historical inability to provide a suitable environment along with the
parent’s current inability to do the same also supports a finding that termination of
parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Lang v. Starke Cnty. OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366,
373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The juvenile court may properly consider evidence of a
parent’s history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and
employment. In re D.G., 702 N.E.2d at 779.
In this case, the evidence established that the Children are all receiving services
through the DCS, are doing well in school and that their maternal grandmother is
addressing all of their special and therapeutic needs. Tr. p. 86, 91-92. Case manager
Garner believed that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest
because of Father’s abuse and Mother’s continuing belief that Father is innocent, her
refusal to believe the Children about the molestation incidents, and her resulting inability
to provide a safe environment for them against sexual perpetrators. Id. at 86, 90. In
essence, the DCS personnel believed that the Parents pose an immediate safety risk to the
Children, despite their attempts to reunify them with their Children. Id. at 191-92, 256-
57, 347-48.
21
In short, we cannot say that the juvenile court’s determination that it was in the
Children’s best interest that the Parents’ parental rights be terminated is clearly
erroneous. Thus, we decline to set aside the termination order on this basis.
D. Satisfactory Plan for the Children
Finally, Mother claims that the termination order must be set aside because the
DCS failed to show that there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the
Children. More particularly, Mother contends that a plan of adoption is unsatisfactory
because the oldest child, R.M., “wants to be reunited with Mother, which would separate
R.M. from the other children and would be detrimental to the others’ mental and
emotional well-being.” Mother’s Br. p. 11-12.
We note that a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children “need
not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the children
will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated.” In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d
258, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In such a case, a plan for the care and treatment of the
children is satisfactory even if there is not a specific family in place to adopt the children.
In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d at 204. An attempt to find suitable parents to adopt the children
is clearly a satisfactory plan. Lang, 861 N.E.2d at 375.
In this case, the plan for the Children’s care and treatment was adoption by their
maternal grandmother. The DCS acknowledges that, at the time of the hearing, fifteen-
year-old R.M. did not want to be adopted by the maternal grandmother and was
considering a guardianship. Tr. p. 83. However, the juvenile court did not enter an order
22
terminating the parental rights as to R.M. Rather, the juvenile court’s order focuses on
the other Children. Moreover, Mother fails to support her argument with any evidence
that the Children would not be able to see R.M. if the maternal grandmother adopted
them. In short, the juvenile court did not err in concluding that the DCS had a
satisfactory plan for the Children.
The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
MAY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
23