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: THOMAS C. ALLEN

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SHERRY A. HARTZLER

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Department of Child Services
Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF ) THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF D.D., ) ) TABITHA DENT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES OF ) ALLEN COUNTY, ) ) Appellee. )

No. 02A03-0707-JV-304

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIORCOURT The Honorable William Briggs, Judge Cause No. 02D07-0607-JT-145

December 7, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Tabitha Dent appeals the termination of her parental rights to D.D. We reverse. Issue Dent raises one issue, which we restate as whether there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental rights. Facts Dent is the mother of D.D., who was born on January 29, 2003. On October 21, 2005, D.D. was alleged to be a child in need of services ("CHINS"). On January 30, 2006, the trial court entered its "Order on Initial Hearing and/or Dispositional Hearing," in which it determined D.D. was a CHINS and continued D.D.'s placement in foster care. App. p. 13. On July 14, 2006, the Department of Child Services of Allen County ("DCS") filed its petition to terminate Dent's parental rights. After a hearing, the trial court terminated Dent's parental rights. Dent now appeals. Analysis Dent argues that the trial court improperly terminated her parental rights because D.D. had not been removed from her custody under a dispositional decree for at least six months prior to the DCS petitioning to terminate her parental rights. In reviewing the termination of one's parental rights, we will not set aside a trial court's judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Where, as here, the trial court issues findings and conclusions, we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and then we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. "`A judgment is clearly 2

erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.'" Id. (quoting Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005)). When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) provides that a CHINS petition must allege 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) 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 3

(D) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child. If the trial court finds that the allegations in a petition are true, it shall terminate the parent-child relationship. See Ind. Code

Download Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.D., and Tabitha Dent v. Dept. of Child Services

Indiana Law