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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN J. HALBERT Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: BARRY A. CHAMBERS Marion County Department of Child Services Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF A.M., A CHILD IN NEED OF SERVICES, ANTONIO LONG, Appellant-Respondent, vs. MARION COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner, and CHILD ADVOCATES, INC., Appellee (Guardian Ad Litem). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0605-JV-236

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT JUVENILE DIVISION, COURT 2 The Honorable Scott Stowers, Magistrate Cause No. 49D09-0601-JC-002831 January 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION SULLIVAN, Judge

Appellant-Respondent, Antonio 1 Long ("Father"), challenges the juvenile court's determination that A.M. is a child in need of services ("CHINS"). Upon appeal, Father challenges the juvenile court's grounds for A.M.'s CHINS adjudication by claiming that the court failed to make the necessary findings of fact and further, that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication with respect to him. We reverse and remand. The record reveals that A.M. was born on December 8, 2005 to Kennietra Mack and Father. 2 On approximately January 19, 2006, Marion County Department of Child Services ("DCS") case manager Marci Gordon removed A.M. from Mack following DCS's receipt of a report that Mack had given birth to A.M. and that A.M. was not safe. At the time, Mack had two other children who had been placed in foster care, one of whom had been adjudicated a CHINS and was the subject of termination proceedings, and the other to whom she had lost her parental rights. Father was not an alleged father of either of Mack's other two children. DCS filed a petition alleging A.M. to be a CHINS on January 24, 2006. The petition was largely based upon Mack's alleged failure to comply with services but also stated that Father was incarcerated in the "Michigan City Penitentiary" and "ha[d] not demonstrated the ability or willingness to appropriately parent the child." App. at 16.

References in the record are to both "Antonio" and "Jaron" Long. Long indicated at the CHINS pre-trial hearing that "Jaron" is his middle name and that he goes by either name. Mack appealed the juvenile court's adjudication of A.M.'s CHINS determination, which a panel of our court affirmed, with one judge dissenting, in In re A.M.3, No. 49A02-0605-JV-371 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2006).
2

1

2

Testimony by Gordon at the April 20, 2006 fact-finding hearing was that A.M. was a CHINS because of the "continued lack of services being completed by the mother." Tr. at 36. Gordon further testified that at the time of the removal, A.M., who was in Mack's care, had "very severe diaper rash." Tr. at 39. Gordon testified that Father was incarcerated at the time of the DCS investigation following A.M.'s birth, that this was the only reason for filing a CHINS petition with respect to Father, and that he had not done anything to impair or endanger A.M. 3 Case manager Shanise Abrams appeared to believe that Father's history of drug abuse and his past incarceration demonstrated his need for services but conceded that his drug use appeared to have occurred before A.M. was born and that paternity had not yet been established while he was incarcerated. In any event, Abrams noted that following Father's release from incarceration and the demonstration of his paternity of A.M., Father had been attending his scheduled visitations with A.M., and that those weekly visits with A.M. were "going fine" and proving to be positive. Tr. at 54. Father testified that upon leaving incarceration he had become employed, had complied with his drug testing requirements and had not been found in violation of his probation. He further testified that while in jail he took anger management and parenting classes. Additionally, Father claimed that A.M. was his only child. The State did not challenge Father's testimony.

Gordon testified that although Father was included on the petition because "all fathers are included in petitions," Father was not in her initial report to her knowledge. Tr. at 41.

3

3

Upon appeal, Long challenges the court's adjudication of A.M. as a CHINS when, as Long claims, the court made no specific findings regarding his alleged threat to A.M.'s well-being, and the evidence shows to the contrary that his interactions with A.M. are positive. When we review a case where a trial court has entered findings, we will not set aside the judgment of the trial court unless it is clearly erroneous. In re J.Q., 836 N.E.2d 961, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh'g denied. A trial court's findings and judgment are considered to be clearly erroneous only if a review of the whole record leads us to a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. In reviewing findings made by the trial court, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support the judgment. Id. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives parents a right to establish a home and raise their children. In re D.G., 702 N.E.2d 777, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). "A parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is `perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.'" Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). "Indeed the parent-child relationship is `one of the most valued relationships in our culture.'" Id. (quoting Neal v. DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 285 (Ind. 2003)). However, a parent's right to his children is balanced against the State's limited authority to interfere for the protection of the children. See D.G., 702 N.E.2d at 781.
4

Indiana Code

Download 01300701pds.pdf

Indiana Law