Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
May 07 2008, 11:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: NITA DAVIDSON-SCHLETER Fort Branch, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DALE F. KRIEG Princeton, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT/CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF: N.B., E.H., and J.H., minor children, JULIE BARNES CARTER, Appellant-Respondent, vs. GIBSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 26A01-0712-JV-602

APPEAL FROM THE GIBSON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade, Judge Cause Nos. 26C01-0708-JT-0018, 26C01-0708-JT-0019 & 26C01-0708-JT-0020

May 7, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Julie C. ("Mother") appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughters, E.H. and J.H., and her son, N.B. She argues that the trial court violated her due process rights by conducting the termination of parental rights hearing in her absence, that the termination of her parental rights was an impermissible restraint on marriage, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights. Concluding that Mother's due process rights were not violated, that there was not an impermissible restraint on marriage, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the termination of Mother's parental rights, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Facts and Procedural History Mother and Edward H. ("Father") are the biological parents of E.H., J.H., and N.B. E.H. and J.H. are twins and were born on March 30, 2004. N.B. was born on July 24, 2006. Father voluntarily terminated his parental rights to all three children on

November 30, 2007. Prior to the instant action, E.H. and J.H. were removed from Mother's care on September 16, 2005. The children were placed in foster care due to Mother and Father being incarcerated in Illinois on charges of forgery and because the home was found to be inappropriate and unsafe for children. E.H. and J.H. were returned to Mother's care on August 11, 2006. Shortly thereafter, on September 26, 2006, Gibson County Department of Child Services ("DCS") received a report regarding unsafe conditions at Mother's home. DCS family case manager Lori Reinhart investigated the report. Reinhart found that there was 2

no running water in the home and that the toilet was full of fecal matter. She also noted that there were prescription drugs within the children's reach, dirty diapers strewn throughout the home on the floor, and trash intermingled with the children's toys. Based on these conditions, E.H., J.H., and N.B. were removed from the home and placed in foster care. On September 27 and 29, 2006, the trial court held a detention hearing and found that it was in the children's best interest that they be removed from Mother's home. On September 29, 2006, DCS filed petitions alleging that E.H., J.H., and N.B. were children in need of services ("CHINS"). An initial hearing on the CHINS petitions was held on October 5, 2006. Mother was present at this hearing. The trial court issued an order on October 23, 2006, finding that E.H., J.H., and N.B. were CHINS. Between October 2006 and April 2007, efforts were made to return the children to Mother's care, but these efforts failed. On April 23, 2007, the trial court issued a parental participation order that required Mother to do the following: (1) seek employment; (2) maintain a clean and safe home with emphasis on keeping certain dangerous items like prescription medications, bleach, and electrical wiring away from the children; (3) cooperate with the parent aide in obtaining parenting skills; and (4) provide DCS with documentation of any change of address and any other documentation DCS has reasonable need to request. On August 3, 2007, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights to E.H., J.H., and N.B. The trial court held a hearing on the petitions on November 30, 2007. Mother was not present at the hearing even though she was given proper notice. 3

At the beginning of the hearing, Mother's counsel asked for a continuance, which the trial court denied. During the hearing, evidence was introduced showing that Mother did not maintain steady employment. Reinhart testified that Mother had been employed by three different businesses that provided services to disabled adults. Mother worked for the first business for a month and then went to work for Unity Personnel. After working there for a month, Mother went to work for ResCare. ResCare ultimately terminated Mother's employment. Reinhart was not certain whether Mother was employed at the time of the hearing. DCS presented evidence concerning the condition of Mother's home. Reinhart noted that she saw prescription medications and scissors in Mother's home that would have been in reach of the children. She also saw exposed electrical wires. On one occasion, Reinhart noted a cat litter box that was full of feces. For an extended period of time, Mother had a mattress inside the home that a dog had vomited, defecated, and urinated on. Reinhart told Mother that she needed to remove the mattress from the home, but she failed to do so. Additionally, Mother was behind on her electric, gas, and water bills. Since the children were removed from her care in September 2006, Mother moved multiple times. At the time the children were removed, Mother lived at 315 South Main Street in Oakland City, Indiana, in Gibson County. A month later, Mother moved to 730 East Riverside Drive in Evansville. Three to four months later, she moved to 613 Monroe Street in Evansville. After living on Monroe Street for three or four months, 4

Mother moved to 1303 Grand Avenue in Evansville. Reinhart stated that Mother was evicted from several of these residences and that she failed to inform DCS of each of her new addresses. Jacqueline Coomer testified that she worked with Mother on parenting skills. Coomer stated that Mother appeared to be receptive to the recommendations she made, but Mother never implemented any of the suggested techniques. She noted that during visitations, Mother did not interact with the children unless the children first approached her. Coomer related an incident where N.B. got stuck under a picnic table. N.B. hit his head three times on the table before Mother got up to help him. Coomer concluded that Mother made no progress towards improving her parenting skills. Sometime in August 2007, Mother married Rodney C. ("Rodney"), who was from Kentucky. Mother met Rodney on the Internet and married him after knowing him for approximately a week. Reinhart spoke with Rodney in an attempt to get some

information about him. Rodney refused to tell Reinhart his Social Security number or date of birth, was belligerent, and threatened her. At one point, Rodney told Reinhart that for all she knew, "he could be a serial killer." Tr. p. 39. E.H. and J.H.'s psychotherapist John Day testified at the hearing. He noted that E.H. and J.H. were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by significant parental neglect. He opined that the children's risk of developing anxiety and depression disorders would be lessened if they were placed in a stable, predictable home. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mother's counsel requested that the trial court hold the matter in abeyance for thirty days before it made its ruling to allow time to find 5

out why Mother did not attend the hearing. The trial court denied Mother's counsel's request. The trial court then made a ruling from the bench that Mother's parental rights to E.H., J.H., and N.B. should be terminated. In making its ruling, the trial court made the following comment: [T]he most significant factor the Court considers is the fact that the mother marries a guy she meets over the Internet. In less than a week, she marries him and this father (sic) absolutely refuses to cooperate with the State of Indiana. I just think it's appalling to me that a mother would lose all sense of her maternal instincts and put her children

Download In Re: The Parent-Child Term. of E.H., J.H., and N.B. v. Gibson County Departmen

Indiana Law