In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.R. and Ma.R. (Minor Children), and M.R. (Father) and J.R. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 28 2018, 9:58 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 APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re the Termination of the August 28, 2018
Parent-Child Relationship of Court of Appeals Case No.
A.R. and Ma.R. (Minor 18A-JT-288
Children), and Appeal from the Clinton Circuit
M.R. (Father) and J.R. (Mother), Court
The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler,
Appellants-Respondents,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
12C01-1706-JT-175
12C01-1706-JT-176
Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 1 of 20
[1] M.R. (“Father”) and J.R. (“Mother”) (collectively “the Parents”) appeal the
Clinton Circuit Court’s involuntary termination of their parental rights to their
children, A.R. (“Son”) and Ma.R. (“Daughter”) (collectively the “Children”).
The Parents argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s
judgment terminating their parental rights.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Daughter was born to the Parents on May 23, 2010, and Son was born on
December 2, 2014. Father and Mother were both special education students
who did not complete high school. Father is unemployed but receives Social
Security Income Disability. Mother has never been employed.
[4] On or about October 27, 2015, the Indiana Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) were notified that the Children had “little bites all over their bodies,
necks, arms, and legs.” Appellee’s App. p. 4. Indiana pest control inspected the
home and stated that the “place was riddled with bedbugs.” Id. DCS was also
notified that the house was filled with stacks of trash, that there was a horrible
smell coming from the house, and that the home was allegedly uninhabitable
for small children. The Parents were reportedly instructed by building
management to clean the home. Id.
[5] The Family Case Manager (“FCM”) assigned to the case conducted
unannounced visits to the home. During the first visit, on November 3, 2015,
the FCM found the home littered with debris, the living room did not have a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 2 of 20
clear walkway, the Children’s beds did not have bedding, Son’s crib was not
fully assembled, and there was a foul odor in the home. On November 6, 2015,
the conditions in the home had improved, but the FCM still witnessed areas of
clutter in the house. During a third visit on November 25, the FCM observed
that the conditions of the home had declined, and she noticed an overwhelming
odor. She also observed that there was old food laying out in the kitchen,
garbage on the stove top, and several items laying throughout the home. On
December 1, the Parents were aware that the FCM would be coming back, and
the conditions had slightly improved, but the odor was still present in the home.
On December 4 the FCM found that the conditions had declined again. She
also reported that she heard Mother screaming at Daughter as she approached
the front door.
[6] The Parents told the FCM during her visits that the conditions of the home
were created by the exterminator coming to the home to treat for bedbugs and
stated that the home was usually not in the condition that the FCM had
observed. The FCM also visited Daughter at school and observed that she had
marks on her arms, legs, and torso. Daughter reported that the marks were from
bug bites.
[7] On December 8, 2015, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children where
children in need of services (“CHINS”). An initial hearing was held the same
day, and a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) was appointed. The court reviewed
the material allegations against the Parents, and found:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 3 of 20
• [T]hat the condition of [the] home is not being maintained [] and it poses a
danger to [the Children].
• [T]hat the home did have bed bugs and [Daughter] was bitten.
• [T]hat the coercive intervention of the court is needed to help [] maintain the
condition of [the] home.
• [T]hat [the Children are] child[ren] in need of service.
Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 1, pp. 6–9.
[8] The court further found that:
The [Children] ha[ve] not been removed and currently reside[] in
the home of [the Parents].
The Court finds that reasonable efforts were made
by DCS to prevent or eliminate the need for removal
of the [Children] The statements of reasonable
efforts as set forth in the pleadings, reports, and
documents of DCS and/or all other service providers
filed herein are incorporated by reference.
The Court finds responsibility for the placement and
care of the [Children] is ordered or continues to be
ordered to the DCS.
Id. (emphasis in original). The Children were adjudicated CHINS on December
8, 2015.
[9] At the January 11, 2016 dispositional hearing, the court ordered the Parents to,
among other things, do the following:
f. [The Parents] will enroll in any program(s) or assessments as
recommended by the Family Case Manager [(“FCM”)] or other
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 4 of 20
service provider within thirty days and participate in the program
as directed without delay or missed appointments.
***
j. [The Parents] will maintain suitable, safe and stable housing
with adequate bedding, functional utilities, adequate supplies of
food and food preparation facilities.
***
l. [The Parents] will secure and maintain a legal and stable source
of income, which may include employment, public assistance,
Social Security and/or child support payments that are adequate
to support all the household members, including [the Children].
m. [The Parents] will assist in the formulation and put in place a
protection plan which protects [the Children] from abuse or
neglect from any person.
n. [The Parents] will see that the [Children are] properly clothed,
fed and supervised. If [the Children are] of school age, [the
Parents] will see that [the Children are] properly enrolled/
registered and attending school or provide verification that the
child is participating in an approved educational program. [The
Parents] will fully cooperate with the [Children’s] school
regarding any issues concerning [the Children].
***
s. [The Parents] will ensure that [the Children] become[] engaged
in a home-based counseling program referred by the [FCM]. All
members of the family are to actively participate to the extent
recommended by the provider and DCS. The family will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 5 of 20
demonstrate positive changes in their lives as a result of the
counseling.
t. [The Parents] will complete a parenting assessment and
successfully complete all recommendations developed as a result
thereof.
u. [The Parents] will complete a psychological evaluation as
referred and approved by DCS and successfully complete any
recommendations as a result thereof.
***
x. [The Parents] will not allow the use of physical discipline on
[the Children] and will demonstrate the ability to appropriately
parent [the Children] using alternate means of discipline.
y. [The Parents] will see that any person(s) responsible for
physical care or custody of the [Children] is first approved by the
[FCM]. These persons must abide by all the terms of this
[CHINS] matter, provide age appropriate supervision and care at
all times, including, but not limited to providing all medical care
prescribed by medical personnel.
z. [The Parents] will provide the [C]hildren with a safe, secure
and nurturing environment that is free from abuse and neglect
and be an effective caregiver who possesses the necessary skills,
knowledge and abilities to provide the [C]hildren with this type
of environment on a long-term basis to provide the [Children]
with permanency.
Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 1, pp. 11–20.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 6 of 20
[10] On March 4, 2016, DCS filed a petition to remove the Children from Parents’
home and place them in the care of their paternal grandmother, T.R.
(“Grandmother”). A hearing was held on March 8, 2016, and the court found
the following:
2. The following facts and circumstances have occurred since
the [January 11] dispositional decree was entered:
• DCS received reports from the home[-]based care workers,
Tim Adams (“Adams”) and Melissa Ruffino (“Ruffino”), on
January 21 and 22, 2016, and February 10, 2016, that the
conditions of the home have declined to the extent that the
home is unsafe for the [Children].
• DCS also has received reports that [Son] had injuries that were
not reported to DCS and bug bites that were not being treated.
• DCS has received reports that [Daughter] has been having
behavior problems at home and school that the [P]arents are
unable to manage.
3. The dispositional decree is modified as follows:
• VISITATION: [The Parents] will attend all visitations with
the [Children] and comply with all visitation rules and
procedures set forth by DCS or the service provider
coordinating and/or supervising the visits.
The Court finds this modification to be the least restrictive and
most family like setting and it is in the [Children’s] best
interest[s].
Id. at 21–26.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 7 of 20
[11] Over the course of the next year, DCS submitted periodic progress reports
concerning their observations and evaluations of visitations between the Parents
and Children to the court. The FCM reported, in relevant part, that:
DCS has concerns about [the Parents’] ability to parent children.
There were several incidents where service providers were in the
home and observed [Son] chewing on a plugged[-]in vacuum
cord with an exposed wire, eating old food, sitting in a soiled
diaper that appeared as if hasn’t been changed for hours and
[Son] putting pencils into his mouth. On numerous occasions
[P]arents had to be told what they are allowing [the Children] to
do was unsafe and many times [the Parents] did nothing to stop
it.
There were injuries that [Son] received that [the Parents] couldn’t
explain and recurring bites on different areas of [Son’s] body.
[Daughter], who is a kindergartner, had displayed some serious
behavior issues at school. [Daughter] has been suspended four
times within a month’s time. She has torn up the classroom, hit
and kicked other students, the teacher, and the assistant
principal. On one occasion she took her clothes off in front of the
class.
***
Since March 04, 2016[,] FCM has observed [the Parents] making
some improvements in maintaining home conditions and
parenting/engaging skills. However, DCS still has serious
concerns about the lack of supervision. Home base[d] providers
have reported on numerous occasion[s] that [the Parents] were
not paying attention during visits. There were incidents where
[Son] was about to run in the road, down a flight of stairs, was
running around a parking lot unattended and the service provider
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 8 of 20
had to catch him. During a supervised visit at the park on
September 13, 2016[,] [Son] ran into the road and cars actually
had to stop to keep from hitting him. On September 20, 2016[,
Mother] attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on pills.
FCM spoke with [Mother] who stated that the reason she tried to
commit suicide was because she was tired of DCS and wanted
the pain to go away. Throughout the life of this case [P]arents
have not displayed that they are capable of keeping the
[C]hildren safe. Visits were suspended due to the lack of
supervision and DCS not knowing what state of mind [Mother]
is in.
Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 3, p. 37.
[12] The FCM reports also noted that daughter had been diagnosed with Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Oppositional
Defiant Disorder, and Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder.
Id. at 21, 29, 38, 47, 57, 72, 88. Daughter had behavioral issues at school which
included pinching other children’s bottoms, pushing and shoving other
children, covering a child’s mouth and nose with her hands, not following
directions, apparent disinterest in learning, failing to complete classroom
assignments, destroying the classroom, playing in her own feces, spitting out
gum and candy and throwing it at the teacher, flipping her desk over, chasing
and poking a student with a pencil, and throwing a pencil at the teacher. Id. at
88–89.
[13] The Parents underwent psychological evaluations performed by a licensed
clinical psychologist (“LCP”). With regard to Mother, the LCP concluded in
relevant part the following:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 9 of 20
[Mother’s] tested intelligence is below average to well below
average. Her academic skills are generally in keeping with her
tested intelligence. . . . [Mother] experiences difficulties with
attention, concentration, memory, planning, and organization;
however, she may lack self-awareness as to the nature and
severity of these deficits. Also, [Mother’s] reported history is
remarkable for childhood trauma, family instability, and
recurrent episodes of depression with self-injurious behavior,
suicidal ideation, and at least one suicide attempt in September
2016.
In regard to parenting, these findings raise potential concerns
about [Mother’s] judgment, decision making, problem solving,
planning, organization, and ability to stay on task. In addition,
her reported history of depression and her personality style
(based on test results) raise potential concerns about her
emotional stability as a parent.
With respect to treatment, it is recommended that [Mother]
continue with current mental health and case management
services. The findings from this evaluation suggest that progress
is likely to be slow and will occur in incrementally small steps
with little generalization from one situation to another. Providers
will need to intervene in a very concrete and behavior specific
manner. Frequent rehearsal and repetition will be necessary for
new learning to take place. Even with services, it is quite possible
that [Mother] will require ongoing support and guidance in
meeting the needs of [the Children].
Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 4, p. 7.
[14] With regards to Father, the LCP concluded in relevant part that:
[Father’s] tested intelligence is significantly below average. His
academic skills are somewhat higher than expected, perhaps
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 10 of 20
owing to twelve years of formal education. Even so, [ . . . ] there
are also indications of pervasive deficits in executive functioning
with respect to attention, concentration, memory, planning, and
organization. In addition, the findings from the current
evaluation suggest that [Father] is chronically depressed and
anxious with prominent dependent personality features.
Taken as a whole, these findings raise concerns about [Father’s]
ability to function capably as a parent without ongoing support.
Cognitively, [Father’s] parenting is likely to be compromised in
areas of judgment, decision making, problem solving, planning,
organization, and ability to stay on task. His chronic depression
and dependent personality features also raise concerns about
[Father’s] willingness and ability to meet the demands and
responsibilities associated with parenting two small children.
[Father’s] cognitive deficits are such that new learning will be
slow, arduous, and limited in scope. Providers will need to
intervene in a very concrete and behavior specific manner.
Frequent rehearsal and repetition will be necessary for new
learning to take place, and there will probably be little
generalization across situations. [Father’s] depression and
dependent personality features may also be potential obstacles to
new learning as they directly impact motivation, persistence, and
willingness to take on new responsibilities.
It is recommended that [Father] continue with current mental
health and case management services. It could be of benefit to
increase the frequency of [Father’s] therapy sessions to weekly so
as to provide additional support. However, progress is likely to be
slow and limited in scope for the aforementioned reasons. As
[Father] noted during his interview, “I think I’m getting good
help, but the things they try to teach me don’t sink in.”
Therefore, it is quite possible that [Father] is going to require
ongoing support, guidance, and assistance in meeting the needs
of [the Children].
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 11 of 20
Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 5, pp. 7–8.
[15] Due to the Parents’ failure to demonstrate the ability to develop the skills
necessary to properly parent the Children, DCS filed a petition to terminate the
parent-child relationship between the Parents and the Children. After the fact-
finding hearings on August 30, 2017 and November 21, 2017, the court found
in pertinent part that:
5. That there is a reasonable probability that continuation of
the parent-child relationship will pose a threat to the well-
being of [the Children]. As noted above and by all
involved in the case, [the Parents’] cognitive limitations
prevent them from adequately supervising the [C]hildren
and ensuring the [C]hildren’s safety. As such, continuing
the parent-child relationship will pose a threat to the
[Children’s] well-being. Any further delay in providing the
[Children] permanency will pose a threat to the
[Children’s] well-being. The need for permanency is
certainly a factor in determining whether termination is in
the [Children’s] best interest[s]. Finally, the GAL testified
that the [C]hildren were bonded to [Grandmother] and
adoption was in [the Children’s] best interests.
6. That is in the [Children’s] best interests that the parent-
child relationship be terminated. The FCM, [] and the
GAL [], testified that termination of the [Parents’] parental
rights was in the [Children’s] best interests. []
7. That there is a satisfactory permanency plan for [the
Children], i.e. adoption[.]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 12 of 20
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 23–24 (internal citations omitted). Therefore, on
December 27, 2017, the court issued its order terminating Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights. The Parents now appeal.
Standard of Review
[16] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258,
265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence
and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id.
Moreover, in deference to the trial court’s unique position to assess the
evidence, we will set aside the court’s judgment terminating a parent-child
relationship, only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[17] Here, the trial court entered specific factual findings and conclusion when it
terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. When a trial court’s judgment
contains specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered
standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d
143, 147 (Ind. 2005). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the
findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment.
Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to
support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98,
102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the trial court’s decision,
we must affirm. L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 13 of 20
[18] “The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Matter of M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. However, a
trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child
when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750
N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Termination of a parent-child
relationship is proper where a child’s emotional and physical development is
threatened. Id. Although the right to raise one’s own child should not be
terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental
rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or
her parental responsibilities. Id. at 836.
[19] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur in Indiana, the
State is required to allege and prove, among other things:
(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions
that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons
for placement outside the home of the parents will
not be remedied.
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the
continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a
threat to the well-being of the child.
(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been
adjudicated a [CHINS];
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 14 of 20
(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.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).
[20] “The State’s burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of
‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260–61
(Ind.2009) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2). If the trial court finds that the
allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court
shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).
[21] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) requires a trial court to find that only
one of the three elements of subsection (b)(2)(B) has been established by clear
and convincing evidence before properly terminating parental rights. See L.S.,
717 N.E.2d at 209. Because we find it to be dispositive, we will limit our review
to Parents’ allegations of error pertaining to subsections (b)(2)(B)(ii), namely,
whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of
the parent–child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children.
I. Threat to Children’s Well-Being
[22] Termination of parental rights is proper where the Children’s emotional and
physical development is threatened. In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2001), trans. denied. The court need not wait until the Children are harmed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 15 of 20
irreversibly such that their physical, mental, and social development is
permanently impaired. Id.
[23] A trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the time
of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed
conditions. In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.
The trial court must “evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to
determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” Id.
Pursuant to this rule, courts have properly considered evidence of a parent’s
history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and
employment. A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244,
1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
[24] Here, Parents argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a
continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the Children’s
well-being. Although the Parents have complied with the trial court’s order to
participate in services, attended visitations, and have a desire to care for the
Children, the record substantially demonstrates that Parents lack the ability to
adequately parent the Children. Specifically, DCS continuously reported that
“parents had some serious safety, engagement and lack of supervision
concerns.” Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 3, p. 55.
[25] During supervised visits Father had little interaction with the Children. For
example, while Children were visiting Parents, Father was observed to be
sitting looking at DVD’s by himself for approximately 20 minutes at a time. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 16 of 20
On May 25, 2016, the visit supervisor had to inform Father that Son was
climbing on a table and “running out of the play area towards a flight of stairs
in the library.” Id. Father was not aware that Son had run away until the visit
supervisor informed him. On May 26, 2016, Son was running in the parking lot
of an Aldi, and Parents failed to respond appropriately. On the same day, Son
picked up an empty can that was sitting on the ground at a park and attempted
to drink from it. Parents were talking with each other, failed to stop Son from
trying to drink from the can, and the visit supervisor had to intervene.
[26] Moreover, the FCM reported that the Parents do not “understand the majority
of the information provided to them during Parent Management Training and
have yet to incorporate anything provided during the case management into
their parenting time.” Id. at 56. Throughout November 2016, Father
continually showed a lack of involvement with the Children and made
comments about “not wanting the [C]hildren back and being okay with not
seeing them all the time.” Id.
[27] Mother provides the majority of education and interaction, but still continues to
struggle with providing appropriate discipline or re-direction. Id. at 56–57. On
November 9, 2016, Mother tried to get Daughter to use the restroom, but
Daughter refused to move, and Mother began yelling at her and pulled
forcefully on her arm on three occasions. Id. at 57.
[28] Daughter developed substantial behavior issues while in the care of the Parents.
For example, at school Daughter removed all of her clothing in the classroom,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 17 of 20
pinched other children’s bottoms, pushed and shoved other children at school,
did not follow the directions of her teachers, failed to complete classroom
assignments, and does not show interest in learning. Ex. Vol. I., State’s Ex. 3,
p. 85. Parents failed to appropriately discipline Daughter to correct these
behavioral issues, and the behavioral issues did not subside until Daughter was
placed in Grandmother’s care. It is unlikely this behavior will improve if
Children are returned to Parents because even with services, Parents will have
difficulty in supporting and meeting the needs of the Children. Ex. Vol. I,
State’s Ex. 4, p. 7; State’s Ex. 5, p. 8.
[29] Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient
to support the trial court’s finding that continuation of the parent-child
relationship poses a threat to the Children’s well-being.1 Parents’ arguments are
simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
II. Best Interests of the Children
[30] The Parents argue that the trial court erred when it concluded that termination
was in the Children’s best interests. “A parent’s historical inability to provide
adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to
1
In their reply brief, Parents assert that the trial court’s acknowledgment of the Parents’ cognitive deficits is
equivalent to Indiana’s prior eugenics law. Reply Br. at 4. We strongly disagree. Eugenics involves
involuntary sterilization of an individual. The instant case involves parents who have already conceived and
failed to provide for their children. A court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the time
of the termination hearing, taking into consideration the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine
the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 266. After reviewing the
record, we conclude that DCS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s decision to
terminate parental rights, beyond the Parents’ mental deficits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 18 of 20
provide the same will support a finding that termination of the parent-child
relationship is in the child’s best interests.” Castro v. State Office of Family &
Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. “Additionally,
a child’s need for permanency is an important consideration in determining the
best interests of a child, and the testimony of the service providers may support
a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.” In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d
212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
[31] Here, Parents have demonstrated that even after completing and complying
with court ordered reunification services, they are still unable to develop the
skills necessary to adequately care for the Children. Furthermore, multiple
service providers testified that termination is in the Children’s best interests.
The Children’s GAL testified, “[i]t’s my opinion that [it is] in the best interest[s]
of the [] [C]hildren that [] the parental rights do need to be [] terminated so that
[] the [C]hildren can be adopted by [] paternal grand[mother].” Tr. p. 94. The
FCM testified that he agreed that termination of parental rights is in the best
interests of the Children at this time. Id. at 109. Moreover, the Children are
well-adjusted with Grandmother, Daughter’s behavioral issues have subsided
since she has lived with Grandmother, and the permanency plan provides that
Grandmother will adopt the Children. Therefore, based on the totality of the
evidence, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial
court’s determination that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights
is in the Children’s best interests.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 19 of 20
Conclusion
[32] For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it
terminated Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with Daughter and
Son. Accordingly, we affirm.
Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 20 of 20