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: MARK SMALL Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT J. HENKE Department of Child Services Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana PATRICK M. RHODES Indiana Department of Child Services Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jun 12 2012, 9:16 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF V.B., MINOR CHILD, AND HER FATHER, R.B., R.B. Appellant-Respondent, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 49A05-1111-JT-654

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Gary Chavers, Judge Pro Tempore The Honorable Larry Bradley, Magistrate Cause No. 49D09-1007-JT-26401

June 12, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BRADFORD, Judge

Appellant-Respondent R.B. ("Father") appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to V.B. Father alleges that the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") did not provide sufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. Concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father has one child, V.B., at issue in this appeal.1 V.B. was born on September 29, 2009. V.B. was found to be in need of services on November 3, 2009, and the trial court formally removed V.B. from Mother's care. Father was added to the CHINS action on February 16, 2010. On May 25, 2010, V.B. was formally removed from Father's care. DCS presented evidence demonstrating that Father was ordered to successfully complete home-based counseling and therapy, domestic violence classes, a drug and alcohol assessment (and follow any resulting recommendations), a parenting assessment, random drug screens, and visitation. Father completed a drug and alcohol assessment but was discharged from his intensive outpatient substance abuse program. Father commenced home-based services in June of 2010. Father's home-based

The termination of the parental rights of V.B.'s mother, who has a total of ten children, is not at issue in this appeal.
1

2

therapy goals included working on anger management, coping skills, forgiveness issues, and relationships. Father's home-based services commenced in June of 2010, with goals of visitation, demonstrating more effective parenting skills, eliminating the use of illegal substances, and establishing and maintaining financial stability. Father's visitation with V.B. was suspended at the end of July of 2010. The CHINS court authorized that visitation could resume upon Father providing three clean drug screens. Visitation was never resumed and the last sanctioned visit between V.B. and Father was on July 23, 2010. The home-based services were closed unsuccessfully due to Father no longer wanting to work on the above-mentioned goals. Home-based therapy was closed

unsuccessfully in October of 2010, due to Father's refusal to participate further in services until "DCS made things right." Petitioner's Exhibit 48. At the time Father's home-based services were closed, both DCS case manager John Buckingham and home-based therapist Teresa Land had concerns of V.B.'s safety in Father's home due to Father's anger management issues, his drug use, and the other conditions, namely domestic violence and mental health issues, not being eliminated. On July 11, 2011, DCS filed a petition seeking the termination of Father's parental rights to V.B. On October 19, 2011, the juvenile court conducted an evidentiary termination hearing at which Father appeared and was represented by counsel. During the termination hearing, DCS introduced evidence relating to Father's failure to complete the services offered by DCS and to remedy the conditions keeping V.B. from being placed in his care. DCS also provided evidence indicating that its plan for the permanent care and treatment of

3

V.B. was adoption. On October 26, 2011, the juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to V.B. Father now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise his 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 his 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 child's interest 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 child. Id. Termination of parental rights is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Father contends that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was insufficient to support the juvenile court's order terminating his 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 4

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We only consider the evidence that supports the juvenile court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Where, as here, the 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 court's unique position to assess the evidence, we set aside the juvenile court's 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 parent's 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 court's 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 child's removal or the reasons for placement 5

outside the home of the parents will not be remedied. (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the 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 V.B., and R.B

Indiana Law