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
Jun 11 2008, 8:54 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: DIANE RAE HURTT Law Office of Diane Rae Hurtt, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CRAIG JONES Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF C.W., child, BRIAN WILLIAMSON, father and DANIELLE JOHNSON, mother, DANIELLE JOHNSON and, BRIAN WILLIAMSON, Appellants, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 79A02-0712-JV-1015

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Gregg Theobald, Judge Cause No. 79D03-0703-JT-70 79D03-0703-JT-71

June 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Danielle Johnson and Brian Williamson appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights, in Tippecanoe Superior Court, to their daughter, C.W. We affirm. Issue The parents raise several issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court's judgment terminating Johnson's and Williamson's parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Facts Johnson and Williamson are the biological parents of C.W., born on July 19, 2004. The facts most favorable to the trial court's judgment reveal that on November 22, 2005, the Tippecanoe County Department of Child Services ("TCDCS") received a referral alleging Johnson and C.W. were homeless and that Johnson was using cocaine and methamphetamines. This was not Johnson's first contact with the TCDCS. In 2001 and 2002, Johnson's two older children were determined to be CHINS and were eventually removed from her care and placed with their respective biological fathers. The TCDCS had also received another referral pertaining to C.W. in August 2005. No legal action was taken as a result of the August referral, but Johnson and Williamson did not cooperate with the TCDCS's investigation.

2

Upon receiving the November referral, intake caseworker Christopher Reynolds initiated another investigation. However, Reynolds was unable to locate Johnson and C.W. for more than two months, despite Reynolds's contact with Williamson, who was in work release at the time due to pending drug-related charges. Eventually, Reynolds received an anonymous tip that Johnson and C.W. were "hiding out" at the home of Torri Biddle. Tr. p. 52. Consequently, on January 27, 2006, Reynolds went to Biddle's home in an attempt to locate Johnson and C.W. Biddle initially gave Reyonlds "the run around" by refusing to give Reynolds access to the house and denying that Johnson and C.W. were inside. Id. at 53. However, after approximately twenty minutes, Johnson came to the door. Johnson remained

uncooperative and refused to let Reynolds see C.W. Eventually, with the help of officers from the Sheriff's Department and a court order, Reynolds was able to take C.W. into protective custody. A detention hearing was held on January 31, 2006, and the trial court found there was probable cause to believe that C.W. was a child in need of services ("CHINS"). The TCDCS immediately thereafter filed a CHINS petition and the initial hearing was held. On April 24, 2006, the trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition. Both parents were present and represented by counsel. adjudicated C.W. to be a CHINS. The trial court issued a parental participation decree ordering Johnson and Williamson to participate in a variety of services in order to achieve reunification with C.W., including, but not limited to, parenting classes, psychological evaluations and all 3 The trial court thereafter

resulting recommendations, drug and alcohol evaluations, couples counseling, and homebased services. The parents were also ordered to find and maintain suitable housing and legal employment sufficient to support the family, and to exercise regular visitation with C.W. Additionally, Johnson was ordered to obtain her G.E.D. and attend Women's Williamson was also ordered to work with the Assertive

Empowerment group.

Community Treatment ("ACT") team, to obtain psychiatric and neurological evaluations, to take all prescription medication as directed by his physicians, and to complete substance abuse counseling in light of his significant history of substance abuse, which began in his teenage years, and his mental illness. 1 On March 12, 2007, the TCDCS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Johnson's and Williamson's parental rights to C.W. A hearing on the termination petition was held on September 11, 2007. Following the termination hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and on September 17, 2007, the trial court issued its judgment terminating both Johnson's and Williamson's parental rights to C.W. This consolidated appeal ensued. Analysis Initially, we note our standard of review. This court has long had a highly

deferential standard of review in cases concerning the termination of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.

1

Williamson was diagnosed as being Bipolar.

4

In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. In deference to the trial 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. Thus, if the evidence and inferences therefrom support the trial court's decision, we must affirm. Id. In the present case, the trial court concluded that the elements set forth in Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) were satisfied, but it did not issue specific findings. Therefore, the judgment is general in nature. When the trial court makes no specific findings, but instead enters a general judgment, it should be affirmed upon any theory supported by the evidence. Lang v. Starke County Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. "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 trial 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. In order to terminate a parent-child relationship, the State is required to allege and prove that: (A) one (1) of the following exists: 5

(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; termination is in the best interests of the child; and there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.

(C) (D)

Ind. Code

Download Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.W., B. Williamson and D. Johnson v

Indiana Law