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 C. LITZ Monrovia, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JAMES D. BOYER Indiana Department of Child Services Morgan County Office Martinsville, Indiana ROBERT J. HENKE Department of Child Services Central Administration Indianapolis, Indiana

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

Dec 17 2010, 10:30 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENTCHILD RELATIONSHIP OF S.W. AND C.W., and M.C. (Mother) Appellant-Respondent, vs. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 55A01-1003-JT-196

APPEAL FROM THE MORGAN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Christopher L. Burnham, Judge Cause No. 55D02-0908-JT-121 55D02-0908-JT-122

December 17, 2010

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issues M.C. ("Mother") appeals the trial court's termination of the parent-child relationship with her daughters, seven-year-old S.W. and fourteen-year-old C.W., on the petition of the Morgan County Department of Child Services ("DCS"). Mother raises two issues for our review: whether the trial court properly denied her motion to dismiss the termination petitions on the grounds they were filed too early, and whether clear and convincing evidence supports the termination. Concluding DCS sufficiently pleaded and proved the children were removed from Mother for at least six months under a dispositional decree, and the evidence is sufficient to support the termination, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History C.W. was born to Mother in March 1996, and S.W. was born in May 2003. The children's paternity has not been legally established. In April 2008, DCS investigated a report that C.W. was engaging in sex with older males and was using alcohol and marijuana. The report was substantiated as to the drug use, and Mother additionally admitted C.W. had been significantly absent from school. Mother's 2

previous involvement with DCS included substantiated allegations of educational neglect, and an informal adjustment that Mother failed to successfully complete, resulting in a previous adjudication of C.W. as a child in need of services ("CHINS") in 2004. In May 2008, Mother was arrested and jailed for educational neglect, and she later pleaded guilty to educational neglect as a Class B misdemeanor and was sentenced to time served plus one year of probation. At the time Mother was arrested and jailed, no family members were willing and able to care for S.W. and C.W. On May 15 and 16, 2008, DCS filed new CHINS petitions as to S.W. and C.W. On May 16, 2008, S.W. was removed from Mother and placed in foster care, and on May 22, 2008, C.W. was placed in the Methodist Children's Home. Both children were adjudicated CHINS on Mother's admission. On July 1, 2008, the trial court issued CHINS dispositional orders providing S.W. would return to Mother's care and C.W. would remain at the Methodist Children's Home under DCS supervision. Mother was ordered to maintain appropriate housing; establish paternity of the children; seek full-time, verifiable employment; maintain regular contact with the DCS case manager; and participate in and successfully complete services that "may include, but [were] not limited to, home based counseling, individual counseling, parenting classes and instruction." Appellant's Appendix at 37. On October 21, 2008, Mother overdosed on methamphetamine or amphetamine. The DCS case manager found her nonresponsive on the couch in her apartment, while S.W. was present and unsupervised. As a result, the next day, the trial court issued an amended order

3

placing S.W. back in foster care. Mother checked herself into a hospital treatment center and completed one drug treatment program successfully. She then enrolled in the Centerstone intensive outpatient program, but dropped out before the end of 2008. In January 2009, Mother admitted to her probation officer that she had recently smoked marijuana and used a prescription pain pill that was not prescribed to her. Mother's probation was revoked based on her drug use and she received a 180-day jail sentence. In May 2009, the trial court approved DCS changing its permanency plan for S.W. and C.W. from reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption. The trial court found DCS had provided Mother with counseling services, intensive outpatient services, and other service referrals, as well as supervised visitation. The trial court found Mother was not in compliance with the case plan because of her failure to maintain contact with DCS, failure to participate in supervised visitation, and failure to complete services. The trial court also entered a finding that reasonable efforts at reunification were no longer required, and as a result, DCS stopped offering services to Mother. In June 2009, Mother re-enrolled at Centerstone but did not follow through with the intensive outpatient program. On August 7, 2009, DCS filed petitions to terminate the parent-child relationships between Mother and S.W. and C.W. Between late June 2009 and the initial hearing on the termination petitions in September 2009, Mother had no contact with the DCS case manager. In November 2009, Mother again re-enrolled at Centerstone and "was still diagnosed with polysubstance dependence." Transcript at 13. On November 30, 2009, the trial court

4

issued a review order finding Mother had not complied with the children's case plans and had not enhanced her ability to fulfill her parental obligations. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the termination petitions on March 1, 2010. The trial court denied Mother's motion to dismiss and, on March 15, 2010, issued its order granting the terminations. Mother now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Timing of Termination Petitions Mother argues the termination petitions should have been dismissed because the children were not removed from Mother for the statutorily-mandated period of time before the filing of the petitions. In support of her argument, Mother cites Indiana Code section 3135-2-4.5, and in particular the language which provides: This section applies if: *** (2) a child in need of services . . .: (A) has been placed in . . . a foster family home, child caring institution, or group home . . .; and (B) has been removed from a parent and has been under the supervision of [DCS] . . . for not less than 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 [CHINS] . . . . Ind. Code

Download 12171002mgr.pdf

Indiana Law