In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.G. (Minor Child), C.W. (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 Jun 17 2020, 9:44 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Katherine A. Cornelius
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Deputy Attorney General
Madison, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- June 17, 2020
Child Relationship of M.G. Court of Appeals Case No.
(Minor Child), 19A-JT-3076
C.W. (Mother), Appeal from the Scott
Superior Court
Appellant-Respondent,
The Honorable Marsha
v. Owens Howser, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Indiana Department of 72D01-1810-JT-62
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 1 of 15
[1] C.W. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parent-child
relationship with M.G. (Minor Child), arguing that the evidence is insufficient
to support the order. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Minor Child was born to R.G. (Father)1 and Mother on July 18, 2013. On
August 9, 2016, law enforcement discovered then-three-year-old Minor Child
walking alone down the middle of a busy street. After figuring out where Minor
Child lived, officers went there and pounded on the door for approximately six
minutes to speak with Minor Child’s parents. Mother finally answered the door
and proceeded to make the following claims to the police: that she was unaware
that Minor Child was missing; that just days before, the Department of Child
Services (DCS) had been harassing her to remove Minor Child from the home;2
that DCS had inappropriately brought hallucinogens into her home; and that
the fumes from those hallucinogens had prevented her from waking up. The
officers became concerned about Mother’s mental health and how her impaired
judgment and reasoning were affecting Minor Child’s livelihood.
[3] Law enforcement delivered their report to Family Case Manager (FCM)
Caitlyn Hardin to assess the best solution going forward. They collectively
decided that Minor Child’s removal from the home was necessary given the
1
Father is not a party to this appeal.
2
At the time of this incident, Mother was already involved with DCS in another matter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 15
safety concerns surrounding Minor Child’s temporary abandonment and
Mother’s mental stability. Minor Child was then promptly removed from
Mother’s care and custody. And soon thereafter, on August 11, 2016, DCS filed
a petition alleging that Minor Child was a Child in Need of Services (CHINS).
Initially, the juvenile court placed Minor Child in a foster care home that was
near Mother’s residence.
[4] On August 16, 2016, Mother underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr.
Linda McIntire of Shelby Psychological Services. During the session, Dr.
McIntire observed that Mother experienced delusions that impaired her
reasoning and judgment and that Mother was unaware of the full impact of her
mental illness. Ultimately, Dr. McIntire diagnosed Mother with schizophrenia
and concluded that Mother could not safely provide and care for Minor Child
given the seriousness of her illness. Mother explained to FCM Hardin that she
believed the diagnosis was incorrect because, in her mind, Dr. McIntire was just
a math teacher “posing as a psychiatrist.” Tr. Vol. II p. 34.
[5] Following the factfinding hearing, on September 29, 2016, the juvenile court
adjudicated Minor Child to be a CHINS and entered a dispositional decree. Per
that dispositional decree, Mother was required to (1) undergo significant,
individual psychological treatment; (2) maintain contact with DCS and provide
updates; (3) participate in all DCS-recommended programs; (4) maintain stable
employment and safe housing; (5) complete a parenting assessment and follow
all accompanying recommendations; (6) participate in supervised visitations
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 15
with Minor Child; (7) refrain from using any illegal substance; and (8) complete
up-to-date psychological examinations. See generally Ex. Vol. II p. 37-39.
[6] As part of her treatment regimen, Mother first attended sessions at the
Lifesprings outpatient facility. There, Mother was required to participate in
individual therapy, case management, and medical management. However,
sometime in December 2016, Lifesprings discharged Mother, finding that her
delusions were too severe for her to make any progress with its programs.
Accordingly, Lifesprings recommended that Mother participate with an
inpatient program at Wellstone before reengaging with outpatient treatment
options. Unfortunately, Wellstone refused to provide Mother with any
treatment based on its conclusion that she was not an active threat for
committing suicide.
[7] Therefore, at the beginning of 2017, DCS referred Mother to Associates in
Counseling and Psychotherapy (ACP), where Mother was to receive
medication prescribed by a nurse practitioner. Though Mother participated in
services, ACP noticed little progress because Mother refused to accept her
schizophrenia diagnosis and “tak[e] ownership of her symptoms.” Tr. Vol. II p.
37. Mother’s personal ACP doctor then referred her to the Centerstone facility.
At the conclusion of Mother’s April 3, 2017, intake, Centerstone also diagnosed
Mother with schizophrenia and recommended further inpatient services.
However, Mother did not follow those recommendations and continued to
deny that she suffered from schizophrenia. Along the way, DCS helped pay for
Mother’s medication to help her control her delusions so that she could begin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 15
therapy. Centerstone even provided Mother with prescription cards to reduce
the price of her medication for the same reason. On April 17, 2017, the juvenile
court ordered that Minor Child be placed with her maternal grandmother, who
lives in Chicago.
[8] By October 2017, Mother was participating with Centerstone’s outpatient
services, but her aggression and delusions further worsened. She claimed that
she was unable to meet with a therapist alone, and she never started any
inpatient services, despite multiple recommendations that she do so. For the
next three months, Mother consistently refused to participate in required
services and admit that she had mental health issues. Mother did keep in
constant contact with FCM Hardin, who suspected that Mother had not been
taking her prescription medication on schedule or even at all.
[9] In January 2018, FCM Shelly Campbell took over Mother’s case and referred
her to Ireland Home Based Services to address Mother’s parenting skills. After
her involvement with that program broke down, Mother returned to
Lifesprings, which again recommended that Mother immediately be admitted
to an inpatient program. FCM Campbell testified that Mother started to refuse
to return drug screens and that Mother’s behavior was “very erratic.” Id. at 48.
And when Mother did return drug screens, she tested positive for
amphetamines and cocaine in May 2018.
[10] Moreover, while undergoing treatment, Mother gave birth to another child on
June 9, 2018. That same day, DCS intervened immediately and removed the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 15
newborn child from Mother’s care and custody due to Mother’s unresolved
mental health issues. The record shows that Mother did not obtain prenatal care
and smoked and drank heavily throughout this pregnancy. Mother’s mental
health continued to deteriorate after this point, and Mother showed no sign of
attempting to start any new mental health treatment.
[11] During the CHINS proceedings, Mother rarely visited with Minor Child. DCS
concedes that it was a long drive between Austin, Indiana—where Mother
resides—and Chicago, Illinois—where Minor Child’s maternal grandmother
resides. However, Mother barely visited with Minor Child even when Minor
Child was placed in foster care nearby. And even after DCS gave Mother a gas
card and set up halfway visits in Lafayette, Indiana, Mother either cancelled the
supervised visitations or did not show up at all. FCM Campbell testified that
Mother’s last supervised visitation with Minor Child was at a DCS office in
summer 2018 and that the visitation was not productive.
[12] On October 16, 2018, DCS filed a petition for involuntary termination of the
parent-child relationship between Mother and Minor Child. The juvenile court
held a termination hearing on April 22, 2019, at which time Mother was
incarcerated. FCM Hardin testified that because of Mother’s ongoing mental
health issues and her unwillingness to seek proper treatment or accept her
diagnosis, Minor Child would be in danger if returned to Mother’s care and
custody. FCM Campbell testified that Mother could not provide for Minor
Child’s emotional needs and that Mother’s instability would create an unsafe
environment for Minor Child. Additionally, Court Appointed Special Advocate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 6 of 15
(CASA) Lena Reynolds testified that termination was in Minor Child’s best
interests and that her maternal grandmother was ready and willing to adopt
Minor Child.
[13] Eventually, on December 2, 2019,3 the juvenile court issued an order
terminating Mother’s parent-child relationship with Minor Child. Mother now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[14] When reviewing an order on the termination of a parental relationship:
We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of
witnesses, but consider only the evidence that supports the
judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence. We confine our review to two steps: whether the
evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then
whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the
judgment.
Reviewing whether the evidence “clearly and convincingly”
supports the findings, or the findings “clearly and convincingly”
support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the evidence.
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014) (internal citations omitted) (some
internal quotations omitted). We must give “due regard” to the juvenile court’s
3
There is nothing in the record indicating why it took the juvenile court nearly eight months before it issued
its order terminating Mother’s parent-child relationship with Minor Child. We urge juvenile courts to be
more expedient with these matters, especially when a child has been removed from a respondent parent’s
care and custody.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 7 of 15
ability to judge witness credibility firsthand, and we will not set aside its
findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id.
[15] Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2), DCS must prove the
following in order to terminate a parent-child relationship:
(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 local office 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:
(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 child in need of services;
(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 8 of 15
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of
the child.
DCS must prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In re N.G.,
51 N.E.3d 1167, 1170 (Ind. 2016).
II. Sufficiency
[16] On appeal, Mother argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the order
terminating her parent-child relationship with Minor Child. Specifically,
Mother contends that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the conditions that led to Minor Child’s removal will not be remedied; that
continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Minor Child’s
well-being; and that termination is in Minor Child’s best interests.
Conditions Resulting in Removal
[17] First, we must consider what conditions led to Minor Child’s initial and
continued removal and second, whether DCS proved that there is a reasonable
probability that those conditions will not be remedied. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d
1127, 1134 (Ind. 2010). Minor Child was initially removed from Mother’s care
and custody after police officers discovered Minor Child walking alone down
the middle of a busy street. Once she finally answered the officers’ knocks at her
door, Mother then made various accusations about DCS and claimed that she
did not even know that Minor Child had left the home. Concerned about
Mother’s mental state, the officers then relayed their report to FCM Hardin,
who determined that initial removal was necessary for Minor Child’s health.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 9 of 15
Minor Child continued to be removed from Mother’s care during the CHINS
case because of Mother’s repeated drug use, failure to participate in court-
ordered services, unwillingness to accept her diagnosis, and minimal progress in
the way of treatment.
[18] Upon review of the record, we find that there was ample evidence supporting
the juvenile court’s conclusion that the conditions resulting in removal would
not be remedied. Though we do not fault Mother for merely having a mental
illness, we do take into consideration whether that mental illness affects
Mother’s ability to parent Minor Child in a safe and appropriate way. See R.G.
v. Marion Cty. Office, Dep’t of Family & Children, 647 N.E.2d 326, 330 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1995) (holding that a parent’s mental illness “standing alone, is not a
proper ground for terminating parental rights. However, in instances where the
parents are incapable of or unwilling to fulfill their obligations in caring for their
child, mental illness may be considered[] (internal citation omitted)).
[19] Here, the record is replete with evidence demonstrating Mother’s lack of
commitment to fulfilling her obligations during the CHINS proceedings. Any
time Mother showed some indicia of progress, she regressed and directly
violated the juvenile court’s orders. See, e.g., Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family &
Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the juvenile
court may “consider the parent’s response to the services offered through . . .
DCS[]” in CHINS proceedings). At every step of the way, Mother plainly
denied having any mental health issues, neglected to commit to both inpatient
and outpatient services, refused to return drug screens (and even when she did,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 10 of 15
returned positive drug screens), questioned the authority and credentials of
medical and DCS professionals assisting her with the reunification process, and
did not follow through with any of her providers’ recommendations.
[20] Furthermore, Mother failed to make any meaningful efforts to reestablish a
bond with Minor Child from the moment of removal. When Minor Child lived
in foster care and was geographically closer to Mother, Mother simply did not
attend supervised visitations. And when Minor Child was placed with her
maternal grandmother in Chicago, Mother did little to make visitations happen,
even when DCS arranged for visitations to take place in Lafayette and provided
Mother with a gas card. Mother’s failure to exercise her right to visit her child
demonstrates a “lack of commitment to complete the actions necessary to
preserve [the] parent-child relationship[.]” In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 900
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
[21] Therefore, we can only find that the evidence is sufficient to support the
juvenile court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the
conditions resulting in Minor Child’s removal will not be remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 11 of 15
Threat to Minor Child’s Well-Being4
[22] To meet this statutory element, “[c]lear and convincing evidence need not
reveal that ‘the continued custody of the parents is wholly inadequate for the
child’s very survival.’” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d
143, 148 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592
N.E.2d 1232, 1233 (Ind. 1992)). “Rather, it is sufficient to show by clear and
convincing evidence that ‘the child’s emotional and physical development are
threatened’ by the respondent parent’s custody.” Id. (quoting Egly, 592 N.E.2d
at 1234).
[23] In evaluating the well-being of the child, “[juvenile] courts have properly
considered evidence of a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and alcohol
abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate
housing and employment.” A.F. v. Marion Cty. Office of Family & Children, 762
N.E.2d 1244, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). And here, Mother has a known
history of using and abusing both legal and illegal substances. Mother returned
drug screens where she tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines. During
the CHINS proceedings, Mother gave birth to another child; but it was later
revealed that Mother smoke and drank heavily during her pregnancy.
4
We note that the termination statute is phrased in the disjunctive, and because we find that the element of
showing that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to Minor Child’s removal will not
be remedied has been satisfied, we are not required to address this issue. However, we choose to do so
briefly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 12 of 15
[24] Numerous individuals and entities—Lifesprings outpatient facility, FCMs
Hardin and Campbell, Dr. McIntire, and the Centerstone facility—urged
Mother to admit herself to an inpatient facility, but she consistently refused to
do so. Not only that, but Mother oftentimes forgot or simply refused to take her
prescription medication to treat her schizophrenia, despite receiving
prescription cards from DCS and Centerstone to offset expensive drug prices.
FCMs Hardin and Campbell both testified that Mother has yet to fully come to
terms with her illness and how it impacts every facet of her life. According to
them, this inability to care for herself would threaten Minor Child’s well-being
should she be returned to Mother’s care and custody.
[25] The evidence shows that despite the availability of various services designed to
assist Mother with her mental health struggles, Mother has not fulfilled her
obligations. And as it stands, in our opinion, Mother does not have a safe and
nurturing home to which Minor Child can return. To the contrary, we believe
Mother’s erratic behavior, exacerbated severely by her frequent delusions and
uncooperativeness, would pose a threat to Minor Child’s well-being. Should
Minor Child return to Mother’s home, the evidence reveals that there is a high
likelihood that the unstable environment therein will have a deleterious and
prolonged effect on Minor Child’s future.
[26] Therefore, we find that the juvenile court did not err when it concluded that
DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that continuation of the parent-
child relationship would be a threat to Minor Child’s well-being.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 13 of 15
Best Interests of Minor Child
[27] “The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents but to
protect their children.” In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“[I]n determining what is in the best interests of the children, the court is
required to look . . . to the totality of the evidence.” Id. at 776. In so doing, the
juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the
children involved. Id.
[28] Here, the juvenile court determined that a permanency plan had been
established for Minor Child to be adopted by her maternal grandmother. And
after hearing testimony from FCMs Hardin and Campbell and CASA Reynolds
about Mother’s ongoing mental health struggles and her need for even more
treatment, the juvenile court concluded that termination was in Minor Child’s
best interests.
[29] We concur in the juvenile court’s assessment. We reiterate that it is not the
mere presence of Mother’s schizophrenia diagnosis that has led to termination,
and we acknowledge the very real issues she has to face. Individuals with a
variety of mental and physical health struggles make excellent parents, but in
this case, Mother has been unable to meet that bar. Simply put, in looking at the
totality of the circumstances, we find that Minor Child needs more, especially
when considering how young she is. The record shows that following nearly
three years of treatment options and DCS-sponsored assistance, Mother is still
simply not in a position to care for her Minor Child. We urge Mother to
continue with inpatient treatment and seek further help.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 14 of 15
[30] Minor Child needs and deserves to have a loving and stable household in which
to thrive, and she has that with her maternal grandmother. With all of this in
mind and given that DCS has established a solid permanency plan for Minor
Child’s adoption, we find that the juvenile court did not err by concluding that
DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in Minor
Child’s best interests.
[31] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-3076 | June 17, 2020 Page 15 of 15