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.

FILED
May 27 2008, 12:14 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRIAN J. MAY South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SHARON R. ALBRECHT St. Joseph County Dept. of Child Services South Bend, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF ) THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF ) A.R.C., a Minor Child, ) ) MARCUS C., Father, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) ) ST. JOSEPH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ) CHILD SERVICES, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )

No. 71A05-0802-JV-51

APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH PROBATE COURT The Honorable Peter J. Nemeth, Judge The Honorable Barbara J. Johnston, Magistrate Cause No. 71J01-0705-JT-63 May 27, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Marcus C. ("Father") appeals the termination of his parental rights. Because the evidence supports the court's decision, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A.R.C. was born September 3, 2004, to a 16-year-old mother who was a ward of the Department of Child Services ("DCS"). Because Mother was unable to support herself or the child and because the identity of the father was undetermined, a CHINS petition was filed on September 20, 2004. The court found A.R.C. to be a CHINS on December 8, 2004, but she remained in Mother's care. Father was seventeen years old when A.R.C. was born. He established paternity on February 8, 2005, and the court ordered him to pay support. Pursuant to the CHINS dispositional order, he was to complete a parenting assessment and follow any recommendations, maintain a stable source of income, maintain stable housing, and maintain contact with DCS. On July 6, 2005, A.R.C. was removed from Mother's care and placed in foster care. On May 21, 2007, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. Trial was scheduled for January 11, 2008. On the morning of trial, Mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights. After hearing evidence as to Father, the court terminated his parental rights. DISCUSSION AND DECISION We have long had a highly deferential standard when reviewing termination of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 264 2

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

Instead, we consider only the evidence and Id. In

reasonable inferences therefrom that are most favorable to the judgment.

deference to the juvenile court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court's judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. A judgment is clearly erroneous only if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment thereon. Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). "The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution." In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. However, the juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. K.S., 750 N.E.2d at 837. Parental rights may be terminated when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. Id. at 836. To terminate a parent-child relationship, the State is required to allege and prove: (A) [o]ne (1) of the following exists: (i) the child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree; ***** (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, 3

(D)

there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.

Ind. Code

Download Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.R.C., and Marcus C. v. St. Joseph Co. Dept. of C

Indiana Law