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: DEIDRE L. MONROE ATTORNEYS FOR CO-APPELLEE DCS: EUGENE M. VELAZCO, JR.

Lake County Public Defenders Office Gary, Indiana

Department of Child Services, Lake County Office Gary, Indiana
ROBERT J. HENKE DCS Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR CO-APPELLEE CASA: DONALD W. WRUCK Dyer, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

Apr 04 2012, 9:28 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF Ja.B., J.B., J.P., A.P. & C.P., MINOR CHILDREN, AND THEIR MOTHER, R.P., R.P. Appellant-Respondent, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner, and ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 45A03-1110-JT-453

LAKE COUNTY CASA, Co-Appellee.

) ) ) )

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mary Beth Bonaventura, Senior Judge Cause Nos. 45D06-1011-JT-194, 45D06-1011-JT-195, 45D06-1011-JT-196, 45D06-1011-JT-198, 45D06-1011-JT-199

April 4, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BRADFORD, Judge

Appellant-Respondent R.P. ("Mother") appeals the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to Ja.B., J.B., J.P., A.P., & C.P. (collectively "the children"). Mother alleges that the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") did not provide sufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights. Concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of Mothers parental rights, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother has five1 children at issue in this appeal.2 Ja.B. was born on August 19, 1997; J.B. was born on May 30, 1995; J.P. was born on January 17, 1999; A.P. was born on December 1, 2001; and C.P. was born on November 17, 2004. In December of 2006, Mother and the children were about to be evicted from a homeless shelter when a representative of a

Mother has a total of eight children. The termination of her parental rights to the oldest three children is not at issue in this appeal.
2

1

The termination of the parental rights of the childrens fathers is not at issue in this appeal.

2

non-profit community organization called Project Neighbors provided beds, mattresses, rugs, furniture, a washer and dryer, and kitchen accessories for the family in a home that was provided for Mother. For nearly three years, Project Neighbors provided the family with rent-free housing, clothing, mentoring, support, transportation, and food. In exchange, Mother was required to keep the home clean and to work to further her education. If Mother satisfied these two requirements, Project Neighbors intended to pass the title of the home over to Mother. Mother, however, was not able to do so. Over time, the condition of the home began to deteriorate. Project Neighbors attempted to counteract the deteriorating condition of the home by putting a new roof on the home and arranging for volunteers to make continual improvements to the home. Project Neighbors was forced to provide new mattresses and furniture three or four times due to the deteriorating condition of the home. Food was not stored properly. Eventually, the home became infested with mice, and Project Neighbors was forced to replace the stove three times after it became infested with maggots. Over the course of the approximately three years, Project Neighbors spent nearly $40,000 in attempts to help the family. The children lacked supervision. Mothers oldest child, E.W., attempted to feed and parent the younger children. Mother would not supervise the children but rather would spend her time sleeping, sitting, or wandering. Ja.B. was responsible for setting the alarm and getting her siblings up and ready for school every morning. Two of the older children repeatedly ran away, and Mother would engage in physical altercations with E.W. In addition, Mother would occasionally send the children to a relatives home, where some of

3

the children alleged they were sexually molested. DCS first became involved with the children in November of 2008, after receiving reports that the family was struggling with instability and living in deplorable home conditions, and Mother was without the necessary means to parent and provide for the children. DCS case manager Valerie Washington conducted an assessment of the familys living conditions and found that the children were not adequately supervised, the family lack adequate bedding, and the food supply in the home was limited. Case Manager Washington also found that the childrens attendance at school was "really off the chart" and that they suffered from poor grades. Tr. p. 62. Mother told Case Manager Washington that she suffered from a heart condition and depression, but that she was not taking her medication. Mother also told Case Manager Washington that E.W. was not taking her medication. Based on her assessment, Case Manager Washington recommended that with intensive in-home services, the children could remain in the home, but also recommended that DCS should initiate proceedings to adjudicate the children as Children in Need of Services ("CHINS"). On December 18, 2008, Mother admitted that the children were CHINS. That same day, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as CHINS and continued the childrens placement with Mother. Even with the aid of DCS service providers, the conditions in the home did not improve. Mother continued to fail to provide adequate supervision for the children, and, although she complied with services, did not make progress toward improving the familys situation. Eventually, in May of 2009, the children were removed from Mothers care

4

because Mother had failed to show improvement in her parenting skills. Additional safety concerns had also arisen after standing water was found in the home and the conditions of the home had deteriorated to the point that Mother was going to be evicted from the home by representatives of Project Neighbors. After removing the children from Mothers care, DCS provided Mother with intensive services. Mother generally complied with the services, but failed to improve to a level where she could adequately parent the children. Mother had transportation problems and would often be late or miss therapy sessions. Mother failed to implement the behaviors she was taught and would allow others to discipline the children during visitation sessions. Mother was unable to locate housing, employment, or a source of income, and she primarily relied on relatives for support. From time to time it would seem that Mother was beginning to make minimal progress, but such progress would be fleeting and Mother would revert back to her old way of doing things. In addition, Mother failed to progress to the point where her visits with the children could be unsupervised. In light of Mothers failure to make lasting progress in implementing what she had learned through the services provided by DCS, in June of 2010, DCS case manager Amanda Horton recommended a change in the permanency plan to termination of parental rights and adoption because she believed that the children required a sense of safety and stability which Mother had, to that point, been unable to provide. In addition, DCS case manager Maritza Perez indicated that she felt that termination of Mothers parental rights was in the best interests of the children because they required a sense of stability and permanency that would

5

be best served through adoption. On November 9, 2010, DCS filed a petition seeking the termination of Mothers parental rights to the children. As part of the continuing services provided by DCS, Mother was given a parenting assessment in June of 2011 by therapist Amy Stuhlmacher, MSW. Mother scored high to medium risk for abuse and neglect behaviors on all five areas that she was assessed. The results of this parenting assessment indicated that Mother is a great risk for being abusive or neglectful toward her children, and Stuhlmacher testified that she was concerned that Mother would again rely on the older children to take a parental role. On June 27 and August 8, 2011, the juvenile court conducted an evidentiary termination hearing at which Mother appeared and was represented by counsel. During the termination hearing, DCS introduced evidence relating to Mothers failure to implement the parenting techniques learned from the lengthy intensive services provided by DCS and to progress to a level where she could adequately care for the children. DCS introduced evidence that Mother had not shown that she could adequately supervise or provide for the children, that she had not proven that she had acquired long-term stable housing and a permanent source of income, and that Mother was at great risk for being abusive or neglectful toward her children. DCS also provided evidence indicating that its plan for the permanent care and treatment of the children was adoption. Mother presented evidence which she claimed demonstrated that she was beginning to make progress and, as such, should be given more time before her parental rights were terminated. On August 23, 2011, the juvenile court terminated Mothers parental rights to the children. Mother now appeals.

6

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise her children. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 145 (Ind. 2005). Further, we acknowledge that the parent-child relationship is "one of the most valued relationships of our culture." Id. However, although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law allows for the termination of those rights when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet her responsibility as a parent. In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Therefore, parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the childrens interests in determining the appropriate disposition of a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship. Id. The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent but to protect the children. Id. Termination of parental rights is proper where the childrens emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until the children are irreversibly harmed such that their physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Mother contends that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was insufficient to support the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. In reviewing termination proceedings on appeal, this court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We only consider the evidence that supports the juvenile courts decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Where, as here, the 7

juvenile court includes findings of fact and conclusions thereon in its order terminating parental rights, our standard of review is two-tiered. Id. First, we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and, second, whether the findings support the legal conclusions. Id. In deference to the juvenile courts unique position to assess the evidence, we set aside the juvenile courts findings and judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous only if the legal conclusions made by the juvenile court are not supported by its findings of fact, or the conclusions do not support the judgment. Id. In order to involuntarily terminate a parents parental rights, DCS must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (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 courts finding, the date of the finding, and the manner in which the finding was made; or (iii) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a county office of family and children or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twentytwo (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child; (B) that one (1) of the following is true: (i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the childs 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 8

parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child. (iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of services; (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 the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ja.B., J.B.,

Indiana Law