In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.M. and A.N.M. (Minor Children), Roberta L. Renbarger (Guardian Ad Litem) v. A.Y.M. (Mother) and A.M.M. (Father) (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 29 2019, 7:29 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Roberta L. Renbarger MOTHER
Fort Wayne, Indiana Donald J. Frew
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
FATHER
Nicholas A. Adams
Fort Wayne, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination August 29, 2019
of the Parent–Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of A.M. and A.N.M. (Minor 19A-JT-605
Children), Appeal from the Allen Superior
Roberta L. Renbarger (Guardian Court
Ad Litem), The Honorable Charles F. Pratt,
Judge
Appellant-Petitioner,
Trial Court Cause Nos.
v. 02D08-1802-JT-35
02D08-1802-JT-36
A.Y.M. (Mother), and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 1 of 9
A.M.M. (Father),
Appellees-Respondents.
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] A.Y.M. (“Mother”) and A.M.M. (“Father) are the biological parents of A.M.
(born September 3, 2014) and A.N.M. (born September 18, 2015), (collectively
“the Children”). In March of 2015, A.M. was adjudicated to be a child in need
of services (“CHINS”). In August of 2016, A.N.M. was adjudicated to be a
CHINS. In February of 2018, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”)
petitioned for the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the
Children. On February 13, 2019, the juvenile court denied DCS’s petition.
Guardian ad Litem Roberta Renbarger (“GAL Renbarger”) contends that the
juvenile court’s denial of DCS’s termination petition was clearly erroneous.
Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Father (collectively “Parents”) are the biological parents of the
Children. On March 3, 2015, the juvenile court adjudicated A.M. to be a
CHINS, and on August 1, 2016, it adjudicated A.N.M. to be a CHINS. The
Children were eventually placed into foster care. The juvenile court ordered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 2 of 9
Parents to complete services outlined in a parent participation plan (“PPP”).
Mother’s PPP required her to, inter alia, maintain safe and appropriate housing,
cooperate with DCS, submit to a diagnostic assessment, enroll in individual
and family counseling, enroll in home-based services, complete parenting
instruction, take any prescribed medication, and visit with Children. Father’s
PPP required him to, inter alia, abide by the terms of his probation, maintain
safe and appropriate housing, cooperate with DCS, submit to a diagnostic
assessment, enroll in individual and family counseling, enroll in home-based
services, complete parenting instruction, complete a psychological and
psychiatric evaluation, and visit with Children.
[3] Over the next several years, Parents failed to complete certain services and, as a
result, the juvenile court modified the permanency plans from reunification to
termination of parental rights. On February 27, 2018, DCS petitioned for the
termination of both Father’s and Mother’s parental rights to the Children. On
August 7, August 22, August 28, September 17, and November 14, 2018, the
juvenile court held a factfinding hearing regarding the termination petition. The
juvenile court found the following:
20. Daniel Born of the Bowen Center testified that [Father]
completed a psychological evaluation, which by the Center’s
protocol was a parenting assessment. He was deemed to be at a
parenting Risk Level I. He was referred to home based services
and dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT). [Father] did not
complete his home based services at the Bowen Center. He did
attend some individual therapeutic sessions, however. Although
[Father] was characterized as being noncompliant, he was
successfully discharged in May, 2016. From the testimony of his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 3 of 9
Bowen Center therapist, Marla Vandergrift, [Father] completed
his individual therapy. She does not believe him to have any
mental health issues.
21. The parents participated in home based services with Tracy
Pierce of SCAN, Inc. From her testimony the Court finds that
[Father] completed his parenting instruction. He has secured
employment and housing.
22. [Father] lives in South Whitely, Indiana with his girlfriend
and their children, a three year old and a six month old.
23. He did not visit the children in this case between August,
2017 and November 12, 2018. Weekly visits have since been
scheduled.
24. [Mother] completed the first phase of a psychological
evaluation with Dr. David Lombard. He concluded that her
responses were overly defensive and, without further testing,
could not conclude a final diagnosis. [Mother] did not return for
the second evaluation. He therefore provisionally diagnosed
[Mother] as suffering from major depression disorder, Attention
Deficit Disorder, and as a victim of domestic violence and sexual
assault. He also noted in his report a rule out diagnosis for
personality disorder and bipolar disorder (State’s Exhibit 5).
25. According to the testimony of Wendy Gaseiger, a skills coach
with the Bowen Center, the Court finds that [Mother] has not
shown progress in her visits from that which was observed in
September 2017. [Mother], on occasion, concludes the visits
before the scheduled time. She struggles to divide her attention
between the children and does not follow through with
discipline.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 4 of 9
26. In October 2017, [Mother] was referred for home based
services at SCAN, Inc. From the testimony of Shelby Knepper-
Seidel, a former home based case worker with SCAN, the Court
finds that [Mother] participated in a parenting education program
and was making progress toward her goals. [Mother] worked in
multiple jobs to supplement her income. The case worker
testified that she was told that she was “too much of a
cheerleader” for the mother and was directed to re-write her case
notes. Nicole Houston, a subsequent home based case manager,
testified that [Mother] was not making progress and her services
had been on hold since June 2018.
27. From the testimony of Jason Cook, a clinical psychologist
with Park Center, Inc. the Court finds that [Mother] enrolled in
and attended dialectical behavioral therapy. She was consistent
in her attendance. She was interactive and appropriate in her
interactions in the group segment of the treatment. [Mother]
completed all of the treatment cycles except the integration of
skills portion. Respondent’s Exhibit (AA) reflects a report to
[DCS] that [Mother] completed the “DBT skills training group”.
To his knowledge she did not complete the advance therapy
section he recommended. He noted that [Mother] received some
benefit from the services but did not believe she had integrated
the skills she learned.
28. [Mother] has secured housing with her mother. Her mother is
quadriplegic. [Mother] provides for her daily care.
29. [Mother] is employed.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 53–54. GAL Renbarger testified that she believed it
was in the Children’s best interests that Mother’s and Father’s parental rights be
terminated. On February 13, 2019, the juvenile court denied the petition to
terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, concluding that DCS failed to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 5 of 9
prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability
that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal or the reasons for
placement outside of Parents’ home would not be remedied.
Discussion and Decision
[4] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v.
Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). The
parent–child relationship is “one of the most valued relationships in our
culture.” Neal v. DeKalb Cty. Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ind.
2003) (internal citations omitted). Parental rights, however, are not absolute
and must be subordinated to the child’s interests when determining the proper
disposition of a petition to terminate the parent–child relationship. Bester, 839
N.E.2d at 147. Therefore, when parents are unwilling or unable to fulfill their
parental responsibilities their rights may be terminated. Id.
[5] In reviewing the termination of parental rights on appeal, we neither reweigh
the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Doe v. Daviess Cty. Div. of
Children & Family Servs., 669 N.E.2d 192, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.
We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which are
most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment. Id. Where, as here, a juvenile
court has entered findings of facts and conclusions of law, our standard of
review is two-tiered. Id. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the
factual findings, and second, whether the factual findings support the judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 6 of 9
Id. The juvenile court’s findings and judgment will only be set aside if found to
be clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous if no facts or inferences
drawn therefrom support it. In re R.J., 829 N.E.2d 1032, 1035 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005). “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the
juvenile court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.”
Id.
[6] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b) dictates what DCS is required to establish to
support a termination of parental rights. Of relevance to this case, DCS was
required to establish by clear and convincing evidence
(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.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). In challenging the juvenile court’s denial of the
termination petition, GAL Renbarger contends that the juvenile court
erroneously concluded that DCS failed to establish that there was a reasonable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 7 of 9
probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal or the
reasons for placement outside of Parents’ home will not be remedied.1
[7] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in the
child[ren]’s removal … will not be remedied, we engage in a two-
step analysis[.] First, we identify the conditions that led to
removal; and second, we determine whether there is a reasonable
probability that those conditions will not be remedied. In the
second step, the trial court must judge a parent’s fitness as of the
time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration
evidence of changed conditions—balancing a parent’s recent
improvements against habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine
whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or
deprivation. We entrust that delicate balance to the trial court,
which has discretion to weigh a parent’s prior history more
heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination.
Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions
does not preclude them from finding that parents’ past behavior
is the best predictor of their future behavior.
In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642–43 (Ind. 2014) (internal citations, quotations, and
footnote omitted, first and third set of brackets in original, second set added).
[8] Here, the conditions that led to the Children’s removal were allegations of
abuse and/or neglect. GAL Renbarger contends, specifically, that Parents’
partial completion of some ordered services and failure to visit the Children for
extended periods of time demonstrates that the juvenile court erred in
1
GAL Renbarger does not challenge the juvenile court’s conclusion that DCS failed to establish that there is
a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent–child relationship poses a threat to the well-being
of the Children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 8 of 9
concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the conditions
that led to the Children’s removal would not be remedied. GAL Renbarger’s
contention is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge witness
credibility, which we will not do. See Doe, 669 N.E.2d at 194. Moreover, it is
not as though the juvenile court’s determination is unsupported by evidence in
the record. While the juvenile court found that Parents had not completed all of
the ordered services, it did find that Parents completed or made progress
towards completing services. It also found that Parents were employed,
maintained housing, and that Father had resumed scheduled visitation with the
Children. That said, we conclude that GAL Renbarger has failed to establish
that the juvenile court’s denial of DCS’s termination petition was clearly
erroneous.
[9] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-605| August 29, 2019 Page 9 of 9