In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.A. (Minor Child) D.E. (Mother) and A.A. (Father) 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 Jul 21 2020, 9:03 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT – ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
MOTHER Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Cristin L. Just Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana
David E. Corey
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT – Deputy Attorney General
FATHER Indianapolis, Indiana
Linda L. Harris
Kentland, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination July 21, 2020
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of R.A. (Minor Child); 20A-JT-136
D.E. (Mother) and A.A. Appeal from the Jasper Circuit
(Father), Court
The Honorable John D. Potter,
Appellants-Respondents,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause No.
37C01-1909-JT-138
Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] D.E. (“Mother”) and A.A. (“Father”) appeal the trial court’s termination of
their parental rights over R.A. (“Child”). Mother and Father raise three issues
for our review, which we restate as the following two issues:
1. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it concluded
that the circumstances that resulted in Child’s removal
from Mother’s and Father’s care would not be remedied.
2. Whether the court clearly erred when it concluded that
termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best
interests.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In September of 2018, Mother gave birth to Child. Child was born addicted to
opiates and methamphetamine, and the Indiana Department of Child Services
(“DCS”) filed a petition to have Child declared a child in need of services
(“CHINS”). The trial court granted DCS’s petition, placed Child in Father’s
care, and ordered Mother to stay away from Child. However, Father promptly
returned Child to Mother. Thereafter, the court ordered Child removed from
Father’s care. Both parents later admitted that Child was a CHINS.
[4] Over the course of the next year, Mother and Father each repeatedly failed drug
tests, and they were in and out of jail. In September of 2019, DCS filed its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6
petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights over Child. After a
fact-finding hearing, the trial court agreed and entered its order terminating
their rights. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[5] Mother and Father each appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental
rights over Child. The court’s judgment recites findings of fact and conclusions
thereon following an evidentiary hearing. As our Supreme Court has
explained, in such circumstances
[w]e affirm a trial court’s termination decision unless it is clearly
erroneous; a termination decision is clearly erroneous when the
court’s findings of fact do not support its legal conclusions, or
when the legal conclusions do not support the ultimate decision.
We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and
we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that
support the court’s judgment.
M.H. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re Ma.H.), 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019)
(citations omitted).
[6] “Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children—but this right is not
absolute.” Id. “When parents are unwilling to meet their parental
responsibilities, their parental rights may be terminated.” Id. at 45-46. To
terminate parental rights, Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2019) requires
DCS to demonstrate, as relevant here, that “[t]here is a reasonable probability
that the conditions that resulted in the [Child’s] removal or the reasons for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6
placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied” and that the
“termination is in the best interests of the [Child].”
Issue One: Whether the Conditions that Resulted
in Child’s Removal will not be Remedied
[7] We first address the trial court’s conclusion that the conditions that resulted in
Child’s removal from Mother and from Father are not likely to be remedied. In
determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s placement outside the
parents’ care will not be remedied, a trial court is required to (1) ascertain what
conditions led to the child’s removal or placement and retention outside the
parents’ care; and (2) determine whether there is a reasonable probability that
those conditions will not be remedied. R.C. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re
K.T.K.), 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). Neither Mother nor Father
disputes the conditions that led to Child’s removal from their care, namely,
their drug and criminal histories.
[8] We thus turn to Mother’s argument that the court erred when it concluded that
there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied with
respect to her. According to Mother, the court erred in this determination
because she was “effectively abandoned” by DCS. Mother’s Br. at 13. That is,
Mother asserts that DCS “made no attempts” to contact her “or follow up on
the status of her progress” with substance abuse treatment. Id. at 11. Mother
continues by asserting that DCS’s failures resulted in the trial court merely
assuming that “the substance issue was persistent . . . .” Id. at 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[9] We cannot agree with Mother’s assessment. Mother does not dispute the trial
court’s findings that she did not provide DCS with a manner in which DCS
could verify Mother’s claims that she was participating in a substance abuse
program, that she did not complete any services she began, that she continued
to test positive for methamphetamine and heroin, that she has criminal charges
pending, and that she has not addressed her drug issues. Those findings
support the trial court’s judgment that the conditions that resulted in Child’s
removal are not likely to be remedied.
[10] Moreover, DCS did not abandon Mother. DCS developed a case plan for
Mother and monitored her progress, and DCS kept the trial court informed of
her progress, which documents were served on Mother. DCS attempted to
communicate with Mother, but Mother’s provided phone number did not
connect. DCS also informed Mother of local services in which she could
participate. And DCS offered drug screens to Mother. Mother’s argument that
DCS abandoned her is not correct, and the trial court’s conclusion that the
conditions that resulted in Child’s removal from Mother’s care is not clearly
erroneous.
[11] Father also asserts that the court erred when it concluded that the conditions
that resulted in Child’s removal from his care will not be remedied. But
Father’s argument on this issue amounts to the following assertions: that he
passed several, though not all, of his drug tests; that his incarceration interfered
with his ability to participate in services; that he did participate in some
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6
services; and that the court is simply speculating when it concluded that the
conditions that resulted in Child’s removal from Father will not be remedied.
[12] We reject Father’s argument, which is merely a request for this Court to
reweigh the evidence that was before the trial court. Indeed, Father’s own
argument acknowledges that he continued to fail drug tests and did not
complete his services toward reunification. We will not reweigh the evidence
on appeal, and we cannot say that the trial court’s judgment is clearly
erroneous.
Issue Two: Best Interests of the Child
[13] Mother separately asserts that the trial court erred when it terminated her
parental rights because the termination was not in Child’s best interests. But
Mother’s argument on this issue is the same as her argument on Issue One,
namely, that DCS’s purported abandonment of her rendered the trial court’s
ensuing termination order erroneous. For the reasons explained above, we
reject that argument. Further, the findings support the trial court’s conclusion
that the termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[14] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-136 | July 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6