Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 11 2013, 9:59 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
AMY KAROZOS PATRICK M. RHODES.
Greenwood, Indiana Indiana Department of Child Services
Indianapolis, Indiana
ROBERT J. HENKE
DCS Central Administration
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child )
Relationship of D.L., minor child, and D.S., mother, )
)
D.S., )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1206-JT-305
)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
)
and )
)
CHILD ADVOCATES, INC., )
)
Co-Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Marilyn Moores, Judge
The Honorable Julie Cartmel, Magistrate
Cause No. 49D05-1103-JT-864
March 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
D.S. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her
child, D.L., claiming she (1) was denied due process of law and (2) received ineffective
assistance of counsel during the termination hearing.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother is the biological mother of D.L., born in September 1999.1 The facts most
favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment reveal that, in May 2007, the local Marion
County office of the Indiana Department of Child Services (“MCDCS”) took D.L. into
protective custody and placed the child in therapeutic foster care after determining that
Mother had failed to provide a safe home environment for D.L. and allowed then-seven-
year-old D.L. to fondle and “suck on her breasts” for “comfort.” Petitioner’s Ex. 3, at 4.
Mother was arrested on various felony charges, and later pleaded guilty to Class D felony
dissemination of matters harmful to minors. Mother was incarcerated from June through
September of 2007.
Meanwhile, in July 2007, D.L. was adjudicated to be a child in need of services
(“CHINS”), and following a hearing in August 2007, the juvenile court entered a
dispositional order formally removing D.L. from Mother’s care and custody. The
dispositional order also directed Mother to participate in and successfully complete a
variety of tasks and services designed to address her parenting deficiencies and to
facilitate reunification of the family. Among other things, Mother was specifically
1
D.L.’s biological father, Da.L. signed a voluntary consent for adoption during the underlying
proceedings and does not participate in this appeal. We therefore limit our recitation of the facts to those
pertinent solely to Mother’s appeal.
2
ordered to: (1) obtain and maintain stable housing and income to support the family; (2)
submit to both a parenting assessment and mental health evaluation and follow all
resulting recommendations; and (3) successfully complete home-based counseling
services and follow all recommendations of the home-based counselor. Although Mother
remained incarcerated at the time of the dispositional hearing, referrals for a
psychological evaluation, psychosexual evaluation, and home-based counseling services
were made for Mother.
Mother was released from incarceration in early November 2007. Her
participation in court-ordered reunification services following her release, however, was
sporadic and ultimately unsuccessful. In July 2008, MCDCS filed a petition seeking the
involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to D.L. The termination petition was
later dismissed at the request of MCDCS in December 2009 because a pre-adoptive home
had not been secured. Mother was thereafter allowed to continue visiting with D.L. until
January 2009 when D.L.’s therapist recommended that visitation be discontinued due to
adverse behavioral problems exhibited by D.L. following the child’s visits with Mother.
In March 2011, MCDCS filed a second petition seeking the involuntary
termination of Mother’s parental rights. A two-day evidentiary hearing on the
termination petition was held in February 2012. During the termination hearing, MCDCS
presented evidence showing that, although Mother participated in several court-ordered
services including two psychological evaluations, individual counseling as a condition of
her probation in the criminal case, and home-based services, she nevertheless had failed
to successfully compete and/or benefit from these services. For example, through the
3
testimony of psychologist Mary Papandria (“Dr. Papandria”), MCDCS established that
Mother suffers from a “clear delusional paranoid disorder” and also showed “pretty
severe” features of bi-polar disorder,” all of which would require “extensive
psychotherapy” for several years in order to achieve a significant change in Mother’s
behavior. Tr. at 182-83.
Psychologist Michael Johnson (“Dr. Johnson”) likewise testified that during his
psychosexual evaluation of Mother in 2009, Mother admitted she had allowed D.L. to
“kiss and fondle her breasts to comfort him” before the child was removed from her care.
Id. at 98. Mother also reported to Dr. Johnson that she watched “sadomasochistic
pornography and pornography involving bestiality” and used marijuana and alcohol “on a
weekly basis.” Id. at 98-99. Dr. Johnson further informed the juvenile court that his
assessment revealed Mother continued to suffer with “delusional disorder,” “endorsed a
number of bizarre [and] extreme thoughts,” and was a “high risk” for recidivism.” Id. at
102, 110.
Similarly, in recommending termination of Mother’s parental rights, MCDCS case
manager Christine Myles (“Myles”) confirmed that Mother had failed to successfully
complete a majority of the court-ordered reunification services. Myles further reported,
“I have never received any positive recommendations from providers working with
[Mother] or anything that would lead us to believe that she understands the severity of the
sexual abuse and that it will not occur again.” Id. at 149. As for D.L., Myles informed
the juvenile court that although D.L. had suffered “severe sexual abuse” and continues to
exhibit “slight behavioral issues,” the child’s overall behavior was being managed well in
4
his current pre-adoptive foster home, and D.L. was bonded with his foster parents. Id. at
146, 150.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under
advisement. In May 2012, the juvenile court issued a judgment terminating Mother’s
parental rights of D.L. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When reviewing a termination of parental rights case, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable
inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the
juvenile 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.
In terminating Mother’s parental rights, the juvenile court entered specific findings
and conclusions. When a juvenile court’s judgment contains specific findings of fact and
conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cnty.
Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). First, we determine
whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the
findings support the judgment. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record
contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671
N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the juvenile court’s
decision, we must affirm. L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
5
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. These parental interests, however,
are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s interests when determining the
proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. Id. In addition, although the
right to raise one’s own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better
home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or
unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836
(Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur in Indiana, the
State is required to allege and prove, among other things:
(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that
resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for placement
outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the
parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of
the child.
***
(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the
child.
6
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).2 The State’s burden of proof for establishing these
allegations in termination cases “is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In re G.Y.,
904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2).
On appeal, Mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the juvenile court’s findings as to any of the requisite statutory elements of the
termination statute cited above. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). Rather, Mother asserts
she was denied due process of law when MCDCS failed to “make ‘reasonable efforts’
during the CHINS proceedings ‘to make it possible for the child to return safely to the
child’s home as soon as possible’” by failing to refer Mother for certain recommended
services. Appellant’s Br. at 20. Mother also complains that she “was denied the effective
assistance of trial counsel in the termination proceeding where [M]other denied many of
the allegations of abuse, and her attorney did not object to numerous hearsay statements
by the child alleging sexual abuse.” Id. at 13. We shall address each argument in turn.
I. Due Process
“The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Course of Law
Clause of the Indiana Constitution prohibit state action that deprives a person of life,
liberty, or property without a fair proceeding.” In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 916 (Ind.
2011). Parental rights constitute an important interest warranting deference and
protection, and a termination of that interest is a ‘“unique kind of deprivation.’” Id.
(quoting Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)). Children have an
2
We observe that Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4 was amended by Pub. L. No. 48-2012 (eff.
July 1, 2012). The changes to the statute became effective after the filing of the termination petition
involved herein and are not applicable to this case.
7
interest, however, in terminating parental rights that prevent adoption and inhibit
establishing secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships. Id. at 917 (citing Lehman
v. Lycoming Cnty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513 (1982)).
Notwithstanding the significance of the rights involved herein, it is well-
established that a party on appeal may waive a constitutional claim. McBride, 798
N.E.2d at 194. In particular, we have previously held that a parent may waive a due
process claim in a CHINS or involuntary termination case when it is raised for the first
time on appeal. Id. at 194-95; see also In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 834 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App.
2001) (concluding mother waived claim that trial court violated her due process rights in
failing to follow statutory requirements governing permanency hearings, case plans, and
dispositional orders because she raised constitutional claim for first time on appeal). This
is in keeping with the long-standing general rule that an issue cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal. McBride, 798 N.E.2d at 194.
Here, Mother claims that by “refusing to make a referral for services identified as
needed for reunification, [MCDCS] failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the
family” during the CHINS proceedings, thereby denying Mother due process of law.
Appellant’s Br. at 19. The record reveals, however, that although Mother appeared in
person and was represented by counsel throughout the duration of the termination
hearing, she never objected to proceeding with the termination hearing based on the
ground that MCDCS had failed to provide family services in accordance with Indiana
Code section 31-34-21-5.5. Nor did Mother or her attorney seek a continuance of the
termination hearing based on any other alleged constitutional violation. Rather, Mother
8
has raised this issue for the first time on appeal. We therefore conclude that Mother has
waived her constitutional challenge.
Waiver notwithstanding, we pause to acknowledge that this court has repeatedly
explained, “[T]he provision of family services is not a requisite element of our parental
rights termination statute, and thus, even a complete failure to provide services would not
serve to negate a necessary element of the termination statute and require reversal. In re
E.E., 736 N.E.2d 791, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). In addition, we have clarified a parent’s
responsibility in seeking appropriate services as follows:
[T]he responsibility to make positive changes will stay where it must, on
the parent. If the parent feels the services ordered by the [juvenile] court
are inadequate to facilitate the changes needed for reunification, then the
onus is on the parent to request additional assistance from the court or [the
Indiana Department of Child Services].
Prince v. Dep’t of Child Servs., 861 N.E.2d 1223, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The record
makes clear that Mother was provided multiple opportunities to participate in various
services during the underlying CHINS case, including home-based counseling, parenting
and mental health assessments, supervised visitation, and individual counseling as a
condition of her probation, in order to address her mental health issues and to learn how
to safely parent D.L. The juvenile court properly determined, however, that by the time
of the termination hearing, Mother had failed to successfully complete and/or benefit
from these available services. The juvenile court also indicated in its termination order
that D.L.’s interests would be best served by terminating the parent-child relationship.
The record supports the juvenile court’s findings and conclusion. We therefore find no
error.
9
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
We now turn to Mother’s contention that she was denied effective assistance of
trial counsel. Mother contends she was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel
in the underlying termination hearing because her attorney failed to object to the
introduction of “numerous hearsay statements” made by the child to various service
providers “alleging sexual abuse,” thereby “leading to a fundamentally unfair hearing.”
Appellant’s Br. at 12.
In Indiana, indigent parents have a statutory right to the assistance of counsel in
termination of parental rights proceedings. See Ind. Code § 31-32-4-1; Ind. Code § 31-
32-2-5. However, when reviewing termination of parental rights cases, our inquiry into
whether counsel’s assistance was effective does not involve the Strickland3 test used in
criminal cases. Rather, the focus of our inquiry is “whether it appears that the parent[]
received a fundamentally fair trial whose facts demonstrate an accurate determination.”
Baker v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind. 2004).
Thus, when a parent asserts on appeal that his or her lawyer underperformed, the question
is not whether the lawyer might have objected to this or that, but whether the lawyer’s
overall performance was so defective that the appellate court cannot say with confidence
that the conditions leading to the removal of the child from parental care are unlikely to
be remedied and that termination is in the child’s best interests. Id.
Applying this standard to the present case, we find Mother’s claim to be
unpersuasive. The record makes clear that Mother was zealously represented by counsel
3
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
10
throughout the duration of the underlying termination proceedings. As for her attorney’s
specific performance during the termination hearing, the evidence demonstrates that
Mother’s attorney effectively cross-examined witnesses, made and won multiple
objections, introduced evidence and exhibits, and proffered passionate and persuasive
arguments against granting MCDCS’s petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s
parental rights. Of particular note, Mother’s attorney specifically objected to Dr.
Papandria’s testimony concerning MCDCS’s referral for a psychological evaluation
because the referral indicated that Mother had admitted to engaging in certain sexual acts
with D.L. See, e.g., Tr. at 180.
Also significant, Mother’s own testimony during the termination hearing reveals
that she admitted to explaining to her home-based counselor, Mary Funderburgh, that
she had allowed D.L. to “suck” her breasts for “comfort” like “sucking his thumb” prior
to the child’s removal from her care. Tr. at 82. Thus, any alleged error committed by
Mother’s counsel in failing to object to testimony concerning Mother’s sexual abuse of
D.L. was cumulative of Mother’s own properly admitted testimony, and therefore
harmless. See, e.g., In re S.W., 920 N.E.2d 783, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (concluding
that any error caused by admission of evidence constitutes harmless error if erroneously
admitted evidence is cumulative of other evidence properly admitted).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Mother has failed to show she was
prejudiced in any way by her attorney’s performance during the termination hearing.
Moreover, Mother’s own admissions provided sufficient evidence to support the juvenile
court’s judgment. In addition, after carefully reviewing the record, we cannot say that
11
our confidence in the juvenile court’s determinations that (1) the conditions leading to
D.L.’s removal from Mother’s care are unlikely to be remedied and (2) termination of
Mother’s parental rights is in D.L.’s best interests has been undermined. We therefore
find no error.
Affirmed.
MATHIAS, J. and CRONE, J., concur.
12