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: KATHERINE A. CORNELIUS Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CAREY HALEY WONG Marion County Department of Child Services Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF C.O.M., A Child In Need of Services TAMMY OLSEN, Appellant-Respondent, vs. MARION COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner, and CHILD ADVOCATES, INC. Co-Appellee/Guardian ad Litem. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0606-JV-349

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Geoffrey Gaither, Magistrate Cause No. 49D09-0602-JC-6220

April 17, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Judge

Tammy Olsen appeals the trial court's determination that her youngest child, C.O.M., is a Child in Need of Services ("CHINS"). Olsen raises one issue on appeal, which we revise and restate as whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that C.O.M. was a CHINS. We affirm. The relevant facts follow. Olsen had five children that were removed from her custody at various times prior to the birth of C.O.M. on February 10, 2006. Because Olsen had an open CHINS case, the Marion County Department of Child Services ("MCDCS") received a referral from Wishard Hospital on February 11, 2006, reporting that Olsen had given birth to C.O.M. C.O.M. was immediately placed in foster care, and the MCDCS initiated an investigation, headed by Family Case Manager Investigator, Nicolle Freeman. In 2005, Olsen had attempted suicide and left her four-year-old child at home alone. Following this incident, none of Olsen's children were in her care. It was determined that Olsen suffers from borderline personality disorder. Olsen concedes that, at the time of C.O.M.'s birth, she "was not in compliance with the plan of rehabilitation" in her ongoing CHINS case. Appellant's Brief at 4. 1 Olsen had been ordered to receive

Counsel for both sides cite to the transcript in their briefs. However, there is no transcript of the proceedings in this case, as the trial court did not record the proceedings. Verified statements of evidence

1

2

mental health treatment to address her suicide attempt and to act on her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Olsen failed to complete those services. Ronald Moore is the alleged biological father of C.O.M. 2 Freeman confirmed during her investigation that Moore was living with Olsen. There is a history of domestic violence between Olsen and Moore. Olsen was arrested in July of 2005 for battery after she threw an ashtray at Moore. During her investigation, Freeman conducted a home visit and determined that Olsen's home was not ready for her children to return to her care. Freeman noted that, although Olsen's home was tidy, it contained a soot-covered, unassembled crib, one package of diapers, one package of wipes, no bottles, clothing, bedding, or other necessary supplies. Freeman determined that: Due to Tammy Olsen's admitted lack of participation in services referred based on her mental health disorders and lack of parenting skills, prior abuse and neglect of her other children, domestic violence between [Olsen] and [Moore], the MCDCS feels that [C.O.M.] is in need of services. Appellant's Appendix at 24. On February 14, 2006, the MCDCS filed its CHINS petition as to C.O.M. In its petition, the MCDCS alleged: On or about February 13, 2006, the Marion County Department of Child Services (MCDCS) determined by its Family Casemanager (FCM), Nicolle Freeman, that [C.O.M.] is a child in need of services because his mother

were provided by relevant parties. Where possible, we will cite to these certified statements of the evidence instead of to the briefs of the parties. We note, however, that the pages of these statements were not numbered. Bryon Olsen is the legal father of C.O.M. as he and Olsen are still married. They have not lived together for several years, and Bryon Olsen has shown no interest in caring for C.O.M.
2

3

and legal custodian, Tammy Olsen, is unable to provide the child with a safe and stable home. Ms. Olsen has an open CHINS [case] with MCDCS concerning an older child. [Olsen] has failed to cooperate with and complete the court ordered rehabilitative services under the open CHINS [case], has untreated mental health issues, and lacks the adequate supplies to accommodate [C.O.M.]. At this time, [C.O.M.] would be endangered in [Olsen's] care and the family is in need of rehabilitative services. Id. at 17. A fact-finding hearing was held on June 13, 2006. Freeman was the sole witness to testify. The trial court determined that C.O.M. was a CHINS and ordered that C.O.M. be removed from Olsen's care. In its judgment, the trial court found: ***** The Court having heard the statements and considered the file and facts in this matter, now finds [C.O.M.] to be in need of services. The Court finds by [a] preponderance of the evidence by trial that [C.O.M.] is in need of services. The Court finds that reasonable efforts have been offered and available to prevent or eliminate the need for removal [of C.O.M.] from the home. After reviewing the reports and information from the [MCDCS], service providers[,] and other sources, which the Court now incorporates into this order (see Court file), the Court also finds that the services offered and available have either not been effective or [not] been completed that would allow the return home of [C.O.M.] without Court intervention. The Court finds that it is contrary to the health and welfare of [C.O.M.] to be returned home and that reasonable efforts have been made to finalize a permanency plan for [C.O.M.][.] The Court orders [C.O.M.] to be a ward of the [MCDCS]. The Court orders that the responsibility for placement and care of [C.O.M.] is ordered to the [MCDCS], with placement at: continued in foster care. The Court now orders [C.O.M.] removed from the care of the mother, Tammy Olsen[,] pursuant to this Dispositional Order. ***** 4

Id. at 45-46. The sole issue here is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's CHINS determination. Specifically, Olsen argues that the trial court erred in not requiring the MCDCS to use individualized proof in determining that C.O.M. should be found a CHINS instead of basing its determination on the fact that Olsen had an open CHINS case. Ind. Code

Download 04170701jts.pdf

Indiana Law