In Re: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Jo.G., Ja.G. and D.G. (Minor Children), C.G. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Stephen P. Griebel (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 28 2020, 10:49 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Danielle L. Flora Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
GUARDIAN AD LITEM PRO SE
Stephen P. Griebel
Griebel Law Office LLC
Churubusco, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: the Involuntary July 28, 2020
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of: Jo.G., Ja.G., 20A-JT-372
and D.G. (Minor Children), Appeal from the Allen Superior
C.G. (Father), Court
The Honorable Charles F. Pratt,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
02D08-1904-JT-252
02D08-1904-JT-253
Indiana Department of
02D08-1904-JT-254
Child Services,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 1 of 8
Appellee-Petitioner,
and
Stephen P. Griebel,
Guardian ad Litem
Baker, Judge.
[1] C.G. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parent-child
relationship with Jo.G., Ja.G., and D.G. (the Children). Father argues that
there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that there is
a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the Children’s removal
will not be remedied. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] In March 2018, the Children and their mother were living in a home that had
significant clutter, moldy dishes in the sink, no hot water, and black mold
throughout the house. The home was condemned on March 16, 2018. At that
time, Father was living with relatives. The Department of Child Services
(DCS) began investigating allegations of neglect. On April 9, 2018, the
Children were placed in relative care and DCS filed a petition alleging that the
Children were children in need of services (CHINS). Shortly thereafter, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 2 of 8
Children were placed in foster care and have remained in foster care since that
time.
[3] During DCS’s investigation, Father tested positive for methamphetamine.
DCS also learned that Father has a prior criminal history, including convictions
for child molesting, burglary, failure to register as a sex offender, possession of
paraphernalia, and non-support of a dependent child.1
[4] On May 3, 2018, Father admitted that the Children were CHINS and the trial
court adjudicated them as such. As part of the dispositional decree, Father was
ordered to refrain from all criminal activity, maintain safe and appropriate
housing, attend all case conferences and visitations, submit to a diagnostic
assessment and a drug and alcohol assessment, and participate with random
drug screens and home-based services.
[5] Over the course of the CHINS case, Father was incarcerated periodically.
Specifically, he was incarcerated in Noble County from June 7 to August 6,
2018, for a contempt charge for failing to appear at a hearing; in DeKalb
County from September 1 to September 27 and from October 18 to December
21, 2018, for possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of a firearm
by a violent felon, and driving while suspended; and again in DeKalb County
on March 3, 2019, for failing to appear at the sentencing hearing. On March
1
The nonsupport of a dependent child conviction did not involve the Children. Father has three other
children who he was not supporting financially.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 3 of 8
27, 2019, he was sentenced to four years for possession of methamphetamine
and one and one-half years for nonsupport of a dependent. His earliest possible
release date is August 29, 2022.
[6] During the CHINS case, Father tested positive for methamphetamine five times
and refused a sixth screen because he knew he would test positive. When not
incarcerated, he completed the diagnostic assessment but did not comply with
its recommendations or complete any other court-ordered services. He
attended some, but not all, of the child and family team meetings; he attended
some, but not all, of the visitations with the Children. He did not have stable
employment or housing at any point.
[7] On April 24, 2019, DCS filed a petition to terminate the relationship between
Father and the Children. The trial court held a termination hearing on October
15 and October 21, 2019. Father testified at the termination hearing that his
incarceration “could be changed” because he might receive a “time cut” and
would then seek a sentence modification. Tr. Vol. II p. 138-39. Father testified
that he had completed multiple programs during his incarceration but refused to
sign a release so that DCS could verify his assertions. He was “hopeful” that
his mother would allow him to stay with her after his release, but did not have a
concrete plan in place. Id. at 146. On January 16, 2020, the trial court
terminated the parent-child relationship between Father and the Children.
Father now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 4 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[8] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights
proceedings is well established. In considering whether termination was
appropriate, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility.
K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). We will
consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that may be drawn
therefrom in support of the judgment, giving due regard to the trial court’s
opportunity to judge witness credibility firsthand. Id. Where, as here, the trial
court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the
findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. In making that
determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly
supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the
judgment. Id. at 1229-30. 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.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children,
839 N.E.2d 143, 148 (Ind. 2005) (internal quotations omitted).
[9] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) requires that a petition to terminate
parental rights for a CHINS must make the following allegations:
(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 5 of 8
(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
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment
of the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 6 of 8
DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.
K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230.
[10] Father’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by finding that
DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable
probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal and
continued placement outside his care and custody will not be remedied.
[11] The Children were originally placed outside the home because the home in
which they had been living had been condemned and was full of mold and
clutter. Additionally, Father tested positive for methamphetamine and did not
have stable housing or employment. The Children continued to be placed
outside of his care and custody because he continued to test positive for
methamphetamine, participated in virtually no court-ordered services, and was
repeatedly incarcerated for varying lengths of time.
[12] He is currently incarcerated on a drug-related charge. His earliest possible
release date is in August 2022, and while he hopes for a cut in time and a
sentence modification, we cannot rely on hope when the well-being of children
is at stake. He claims to have participated in multiple programs while
incarcerated but has refused to sign a release so that DCS can verify his claim.
Tr. Vol. II p. 33 (Father testifying at the termination hearing that he would
“[p]ossibly” agree to sign the release). He does not have a plan for stable and
appropriate housing for himself, much less for the Children, upon his release.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 7 of 8
Likewise, at no point during these proceedings has he held stable employment,
had stable housing, or provided clean screens when not incarcerated.
[13] Essentially, there is no credible evidence that Father has made progress on any
of the issues that have been impediments to placing the Children with him.
Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court did not err by concluding
that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there is a
reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the original and
continued removal of the Children from Father’s care and custody will not be
remedied.
[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-372 | July 28, 2020 Page 8 of 8