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: JEREMY K. NIX Matheny, Michael, Hahn & Denman, L.L.P. Huntington, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOSEPH K. WILEY MATTHEW G. GRANTHAM Bowers, Brewer, Garrett & Wiley, LLP Huntington, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION ) OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF J.C., ) ) JEFFREY COLLINS, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) ) HUNTINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ) CHILD SERVICES, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )

No. 35A02-0703-JV-288

APPEAL FROM THE HUNTINGTON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jeffrey R. Heffelfinger, Special Judge Cause No. 35C01-0608-JT-3

October 31, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Jeffrey Collins appeals the termination of his parental rights to his eleven-year-old daughter. Because the evidence and findings support the court's judgment, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Collins and his wife, Jodee, gave birth to daughter J.C. in 1995. In 2003, Collins and Jodee divorced, and Jodee received custody of J.C. Later that year the Huntington County Department of Child Services ("DCS") became involved with the family because Jodee was unable to care for J.C. while Collins was incarcerated for operating while intoxicated. Collins' nephew and the nephew's wife obtained custody and a guardianship over J.C. in early 2004. In March of 2005, the guardians contacted DCS because they were having trouble with J.C. DCS filed a Child in Need of Services ("CHINS") petition and placed J.C. in foster care. Collins assisted DCS with the development of a case plan that required him to complete parenting skills classes, obtain a substance abuse assessment and complete any recommended treatment, receive a mental health assessment, and engage in supervised visitation with J.C. However, in April of 2005, Collins was again incarcerated for operating while intoxicated, and his probation for invasion of privacy was revoked. Collins had signed up for the required classes and assessments, but he was unable to complete those services due to his incarceration. Neither did DCS offer him any services while he was

incarcerated. Collins wrote letters to maintain contact with J.C.

2

On August 15, 2006, DCS filed a petition to terminate Collins' rights to J.C. The court appointed counsel to represent Collins, then held a fact-finding hearing on January 5, 2007. At that time, Collins was on work-release and working at Bluffton Rubber. On March 1, 2007, the court terminated Collins' rights in an order that contained the following pertinent findings and conclusions: 13. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal from her home will not be remedied. A. The testimony of HCDCS caseworker Karenna Hernandez, former HCDCS caseworker Marcia Wiblin-Whited, and Youth Services casemanager Esther Crago all establish that none of the case plans . . . were successfully complied with or completed by . . . Jeffrey Collins. ***** (2.) Jeffrey Collins has failed to do the following: a. Successfully complete a mental health assessment; b. Address his anger/discipline problems through treatment; c. Complete a substance abuse assessment; d. Address substance abuse issues through treatment; e. Successfully complete Parenting Classes; f. Failed to comply with supervised visitation schedules; g. Stop drinking alcoholic beverages. 14. The Court finds that while there was some visitation exercised by the natural parents soon after the removal of the child from their home, there is clear and convincing evidence that none of the requirements of the case plans have been substantially complied with by . . . the natural father . . . . 15. The Court specifically finds that the individual and family counseling services, the substance abuse counseling services, mental health services, anger management services, parenting services, and other family based support services as offered by the Department of Child Services were not successfully completed nor were the natural parents compliant with the requirements for services placed on them. 16. The Court specifically finds that the natural father, Jeffrey Collins, has been incarcerated for a very large part of the time of the pendency of 3

the CHINS cause of action, and due to said incarceration Jeffrey Collins was unable to comply with the requirements of any of the individual case plans. 17. There is clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship is proper since the HCDCS has established that the conditions leading to removal of the child would not be remedied and that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child's safety and well-being. 18. When making its determination, this Court has considered the services offered to the parent and the parent's response to those services. ***** 20. The Court finds that Jeffrey Collins has a long criminal history and is presently incarcerated at the Wells County Jail and has been for the past several months. 21. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that habitual patterns of conduct by Jeffrey Collins easily lead to the conclusion that there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child due to Mr. Collins [sic] inability to lead a crime-free life and to remain sober. 22. The Court finds that an individual who pursues criminal activity runs the risk of being denied the opportunity to develop [a] positive and meaningful relationship with his child and Jeffrey Collins has a significant and long history of criminal activity. 23. The Court specifically finds that under Indiana law and practice, the natural father, Jeffrey Collins, will be imprisoned until at least May 2007, and therefore [is] unable to provide any care or support the minor child as of the date of this hearing. 24. The Court hears and considers the testimony of Guardian ad litem (Tia Brewer) and agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the GAL as reflected in her Report filed with the Court on the day of the termination hearing. The GAL Report is made a part of this Order. A. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child . . . has "already terminated her emotional bonds with her natural parents." (Testimony of GAL Tia Brewer) 25. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the physical, mental, and social growth of [J.C.] would be harmed and impaired if termination of the parent-child relationship is not completed as requested by the HCDCS and recommended by the Guardian ad litem. ***** 27. It is concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions which resulted in the removal of the child will not be remedied as this court has evaluated the parent's fitness to care for his children at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of any 4

changed conditions. Mr. Collins is presently incarcerated and there is no evidence that he has made any significant or substantial change of his lifestyle or corrected any of his life problems. Best Interests of the Child 28. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the father, Jeffrey Collins, has an historic inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision for [J.C.] and his continued incarceration at the time of the January 5, 2007 termination hearing is strong evidence of his current inability to provide same. A. [J.C.] is in need of stability and permanency now; B. [J.C.] is doing well in her current placement; C. There is no guarantee that [Collins] will be a suitable parent once he is released from incarceration or even that he would obtain a change of custody of [J.C.] in the dissolution action. 29. This Court concludes that a parent's historic inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same supports a finding that the termination of the parentchild relationship is in the child's best interests. 30. Since the ultimate purpose of the law is to protect the child, the parent-child relationship must give way when it is no longer in the child's best interest to maintain the relationship and that principle applies in this case. 31. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it has been shown that the emotional and physical development of [J.C.], a Child in Need of Services, is threatened by actions and inactions of her parents, and therefore, termination of the parent-child relationship is appropriate. 32. The testimony of the child's Guardian ad Litem (Tia Brewer) regarding the child's need for permanency supports a finding that termination is in the child's best interests. 33. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the parent/child relationship between [J.C.] and Jeffrey Collins would be in the best interests of the child. (App. at 38-41) (citations omitted). DISCUSSION AND DECISION A trial court may not terminate a parent's rights unless the State demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence "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 5

parents will not be remedied; or (ii) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child." Ind. Code

Download 10310705msm.pdf

Indiana Law