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: JAMES J. KRAJEWSKI Munster, IN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE LAKE COUNTY CASA: DONALD W. WRUCK, III Dyer, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES: PATRICIA TOPP Gary, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF T.B. and W.M., minor children, WILLIE BUCKLEY, natural father, Appellant-Respondent, vs. LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, and LAKE COUNTY CASA, Appellees-Petitioners. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 45A04-0606-JV-296

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mary Beth Bonaventura, Judge Cause Nos. 45D06-0505-JT-57; 45D06-0505-JT-58

January 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge Appellant-respondent Willie Buckley appeals from the involuntary termination of his parental rights to his minor children T.B. and W.M. in an action initiated by the Lake County Department of Child Services (DCS), f/k/a/ Lake County Office of Family and Children. Specifically, Buckley argues that (1) the DCS's service by publication prior to the CHINS proceedings violated his procedural due process rights with respect to the termination proceedings and (2) two of the trial court's findings regarding Buckley's status and contact with the children were clearly erroneous. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. FACTS On November 25, 2002, the DCS began an investigation regarding the children in Juwanda Mann's East Chicago home after a report that a shooting had occurred in the residence. The investigation revealed that Mann's six children were medically neglected and the children--including Buckley's biological children, eleven-year-old T.B. and nine-yearold W.M.--were removed from the home. Buckley did not live in Mann's home and his whereabouts were unknown at that time. On December 13, 2002, the children were identified to be children in need of services (CHINS) and the DCS filed the appropriate petitions. In the petitions, Buckley was listed as the father of T.B. and W.M. but his residence was listed as "Unknown." Appellant's App. p. 19. On December 17, 2002, the trial court ordered a service by publication for Buckley "in 2

the Star Newspaper once each week for three successive weeks" and scheduled an initial hearing for Mann on February 26, 2003, and a service return hearing for Buckley on March 17, 2003. Id. at 27. At the initial hearing, Mann admitted the material allegations of the DCS's petition and the court adopted a case plan calling for the reunification of Mann with her children and ordered parenting classes, drug and alcohol screens and counseling, visitation, and a psychological evaluation. Buckley did not appear at the March 17, 2003, service return hearing, and the trial court found "adequate service of process on Willie Buckley" and granted the DCS's CHINS petition. Id. at 30. Although Mann initially complied with the services offered in the case plan, she later became uncooperative and the DCS filed petitions for the involuntary termination of Mann and Buckley's parental rights on May 11, 2005. In September 2005, Laconyea Pitts-Thomas, the case manager, received a letter from Buckley indicating that he was the father of T.B. and W.M. Tr. p. 28-29. On November 25, 2005, the trial court received a letter from Buckley stating that he was incarcerated at the Calipatria State Prison in Calipatria, California. The trial court appointed legal counsel to represent him at the fact-finding hearing. The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on April 6, 2006. While Buckley did not personally appear, his legal counsel was present to represent his interests. The trial court made two findings regarding Buckley: Buckley did not contact his children until September 2005 and had since sent them two letters, and he "is currently serving a sentence in the prison system in California and he has not participated in a plan of care, treatment or rehabilitation." Id. at 11. The trial court concluded that termination "is in the best interest[s] of the

3

child[ren]" and that "there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child[ren]." Appellant's App. p. 12. In light of these findings, the trial court terminated Buckley and Mann's parental rights with regard to all six children, including T.B. and W.M. Buckley now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION I. Standard of Review In addressing Buckley's claims, we first note that we will not set aside the trial court's judgment terminating a parent-child relationship unless it is clearly erroneous. In re A.A.C., 682 N.E.2d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We consider only the evidence that supports the trial court's decision and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Id. If the evidence and the inferences support the trial court's decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., D.S., and A.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). We acknowledge that the involuntary termination of parental rights is the most extreme sanction that a court can impose because termination severs all rights of a parent to his or her children. Id. Therefore, termination is intended as a last resort, available only when all other reasonable efforts have failed. Id. The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parents but, instead, to protect their children. Id. Thus, although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. Id.

4

To effect the involuntary termination of a parent-child relationship, the State must present clear and convincing evidence establishing the elements of Indiana Code section 3135-2-4(b)(2). (A) one (1) of the following exists: (i) the child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree; (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; or (iii) after July 1, 1999, the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a county office of family and children for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months; (B) there is a reasonable probability that: (i) the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied; or (ii) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child; (C) termination is in the best interests of the child; and (D) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child. Ind. Code

Download In the Matter of T.B. & W.M., Willie Buckley v. Lake Co. Dept. of Child Serv

Indiana Law