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 KNECHT Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CRAIG JONES Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
EVA A. CONRAD, Appellant-Respondent, vs. TIPPECANOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED
Mar 20 2008, 7:55 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 79A02-0706-JV-489

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Loretta H. Rush, Judge Cause Nos. 79D03-0703-JT-79 and 79D03-0703-JT-80

March 20, 2008

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Eva Conrad ("Mother") appeals from the trial court's termination of her parental rights with respect to her sons, C.C. and A.M. (collectively "the children"). She raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the Tippecanoe County Department of Child Services ("DCS") presented sufficient evidence to sustain the termination of her parental rights. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother was married to Brian Conrad ("Brian"), and they had a child, C.C., born November 9, 2001. In 2002, Brian and Mother were caring for Mother's minor nephew, who sustained "extensive bruising to his head and face while in their care." Appellant's App. at 201. As a result, C.C. was briefly removed from their care and placed in relative care. Brian and Mother successfully completed an Informal Adjustment with DCS in January 2003. Also in 2003, "lack of supervision and environment life/health

endangerment was substantiated on [Mother and Brian] in regard to 2 unrelated children[.]" Id. "In addition, bruises/cuts/welts, bone fracture and inappropriate

discipline were also substantiated on [Mother and Brian] in regard to [an unrelated child]." Id. On December 21, 2004, Mother was arrested on theft and robbery charges, and she was incarcerated pending trial. Mother had left C.C. in the care of a convicted child molester. At that time, Mother was pregnant, and Brian was also incarcerated. As a result, DCS filed a petition alleging that C.C. was a child in need of services ("CHINS"). 2

The petition alleged that C.C.'s physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of C.C.'s parents to provide him with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision. In February 2005, the trial court adjudicated C.C. a CHINS, and DCS placed him in foster care. On February 8, the trial court entered a parental participation decree, ordering Mother to participate in individual counseling with Vicky Brose at Wabash Valley Outpatient; visit with C.C. on a regular basis; participate with home-based services through Families United; submit to random drug screens upon request of DCS, court, or court-appointed special advocate ("CASA"), completing the screens within twenty-four hours of each request; complete parenting classes through Wabash Valley [sic]; complete a psychiatric evaluation through Alpine Clinic and take all medications as prescribed; remain drug-free; maintain monthly contact with DCS; attend AA/NA (Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous) meetings twice a week and obtain a sponsor; participate in visitation with C.C. in the home, supervised by Families United; and attend doctor's appointments as scheduled. On May 3, 2005, Mother gave birth to A.M., the son of Arturo Murrieta ("Arturo"). Tests performed on Mother, Arturo, and A.M. at that time were positive for cocaine. As a result, the trial court authorized DCS to take temporary custody of A.M., and on June 2, 2005, DCS filed a petition alleging A.M. to be a CHINS. After a factfinding hearing on August 1, 2005, the trial court proceeded to disposition and adjudicated A.M. to be a CHINS. On the same date, the court entered a 3

parental participation decree, ordering Mother to participate in individual counseling with Steve Peterson at Alpine Clinic; visit with A.M. on a regular basis; participate with home-based services through HGCF (Home-Based Goal-Focused Services for Children and Families); complete a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program and follow all after-care recommendations; submit to random drug screens upon the request of DCS, the court, or the CASA; complete a parenting assessment through HGCF and follow all recommendations; remain drug-free; attend AA meetings on a regular basis; maintain monthly contact with DCS; take any and all prescribed medications on a regular basis; and pay reimbursement in the sum of $50 per week. On May 23, 2006, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother's and Brian's parental rights with respect to C.C. and Mother's and Arturo's parental rights with respect to A.M. Following a hearing that took place in September and October 2006, the trial court denied the petitions to terminate. On February 7, 2007, DCS again filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother, Brian, and Arturo. Following a hearing on those petitions on May 1, 2007, the trial court entered its order terminating Mother's and Brian's parental rights with respect to C.C. and Mother's and Arturo's parental rights with respect to A.M.1 Mother now appeals.2

Brian and Arturo are not parties to this appeal. This court has affirmed the termination of Brian's parental rights. Conrad v. Tippecanoe Dep't of Child Servs., No. 79A04-0708-JV-440 (Ind. Ct. App. January 16, 2008). Arturo did not appeal the termination of his parental rights as to A.M. In her June 24, 2006, report, the CASA stated that Arturo "had not been seen for some time" and "was arrested and able to come up with $10,000 cash bond, which led to suspicion that he may have been dealing drugs. He has reportedly fled the country to Mexico." Appellant's App. at 298. Arturo did not appear at the second termination hearing, in person or by counsel, and he has not appealed.

1

4

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the involuntary termination of her parental rights. Initially, we note that the purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents, but to protect the children. Weldishofer v. Dearborn County Div. of Family & Children (In re J.W.), 779 N.E.2d 954, 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. "Although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law allows for the termination of those rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities as parents. This includes situations not only where the child is in immediate danger of losing his life, but also where the child's emotional and physical development are threatened." Id. In reviewing a decision to terminate a parent-child relationship, this court will not set aside the judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Everhart v. Scott County Office of Family & Children, 779 N.E.2d 1225, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable inferences to support them. Id. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court neither reweighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of the witnesses. Id. To support a petition to terminate parental rights, DCS must show, among other things, that there is a reasonable probability that:

Mother has included a nearly complete copy of the transcript in her five-volume appendix. This practice not only violates Indiana Appellate Rule 50(A)(g), which instructs appellants to include "brief portions of the Transcript . . . that are important to a consideration of the issues raised on appeal," but results in unreasonably high copying expenses and an unwieldy file. We urge Mother's counsel to abide by this important rule in the future. We also observe that the table of contents for the appendix is inaccurate, making our review and use of the appendix very difficult.

2

5

(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 the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child.

(ii)

Ind. Code

Download Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.C. & A.M.; Eva A. Conrad v. Ti

Indiana Law