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 Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT J. HENKE Indiana Department of Child Services Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana PATRICK M. RHODES Indiana Department of Child Services Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS OF K.N., B.N., R.N. and G.N., minor children, and their Mother, C.N. C.N. (MOTHER), Appellant-Respondent, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner, CHILD ADVOCATES, INC., Co-Appellee (Guardian ad Litem). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED
Dec 29 2011, 9:17 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 49A02-1106-JT-000530

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Gary K. Chavers, Judge Pro Tempore The Honorable Larry E. Bradley, Magistrate Cause Nos. 49D09-1012-JT-052698; 49D09-1012-JT-052699 Cause Nos. 49D09-1012-JT-052700; 49D09-1012-JT-052701

December 29, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary C.N. ("Mother") appeals an order terminating her parental rights to K.N., B.N., R.N., and G.N. (collectively, "the Children") upon the petition of the Marion County Department of Child Services ("DCS").1 We affirm. Issue Mother presents a single, restated, issue for appeal: Whether DCS established, by clear and convincing evidence, the requisite statutory elements to support the termination of parental rights.2 Facts and Procedural History On February 4, 2008, DCS alleged that the Children were Children in Need of Services ("CHINS") based on allegations that Mother's boyfriend had sexually abused one of

The putative fathers, named as respondents in the termination proceedings, are not active parties to this appeal. 2 Mother framed the issue for appeal as "Whether a mother's parental rights should be terminated because she was inconsistent in her parenting." Appellant's Brief at 1. We perceive this to be a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

1

2

the Children but Mother had allowed further contact between the victim and the boyfriend and had urged the victim to recant her allegations of abuse. Mother admitted the allegations, and the Children were determined to be CHINS and removed from Mother's care. Mother participated in various services directed toward reunification, including parenting classes and in-home counseling. Because Mother would often appear depressed, defensive, overwhelmed, or subject to angry outbursts, the initial goal of service providers was that Mother would exhibit emotional stability for a ninety-day period. Despite that goal not having been met, in April of 2009, the Children were returned to Mother's care on a temporary trial basis. At a CHINS review hearing in July of 2009, the DCS alleged that Mother was non-compliant with home-based services and failed to provide the Children with a safe and structured environment. DCS case manager Stephanie Neal ("Neal") was concerned that the Children had persistent lice and school attendance problems. The Children were again removed from Mother's care. Mother continued to receive home-based services and in-home visitation was arranged for a weekend in September of 2010. According to home-based counselor Laura Guise ("Guise"), the visit was chaotic and Mother was "emotionally overwhelmed" and "verbally aggressive." (Tr. 87.) The overnight visits were discontinued but Mother had unsupervised visitation in the fall of 2010. However, in December of 2010, Mother's mental health appeared to deteriorate. After Mother threatened to flee to Michigan with the Children, Neal recommended a change to supervised visitation, which was implemented. On December 7, 2010, DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights. The

3

Marion County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, conducted an evidentiary hearing on April 11, 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated that DCS had met its burden of proof, but the court also observed that there had been evidence presented that post-adoption contact with Mother was in the Children's best interests. The court took the matter under advisement to provide the parties with an opportunity to reach a resolution. On May 6, 2011, the Children's Guardian ad Litem filed notice of non-resolution. Also on that date, the court issued an order terminating Mother's parental rights. She now appeals. Discussion and Decision A. Standard of Review Our standard of review is highly deferential in cases concerning the termination of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). This Court 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). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of involuntary termination of a parent-child relationship, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. We consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. B. Requirements for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights Parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, but the law provides for the termination of those rights when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147

4

(Ind. 2005). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parents, but to protect their children. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) sets out the elements that DCS must allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence in order to terminate a parent-child relationship: (A) That one (1) of the following is true: (i) (ii) The child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree. 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. 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, 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;

(iii)

(B) That one (1) of the following is true: (i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied. There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child. The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of services;

(ii)

(iii)

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and (D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child. If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in Section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code

Download In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., B.N., R

Indiana Law