In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.W. (Minor Child) and A.W. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 03 2015, 9:02 am
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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cindi J. Andrews Gregory F. Zoeller
Plymouth, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke
Deputy Attorney General

David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination February 3, 2015
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Cause No.
of: 50A03-1406-JT-221
Appeal from the Marshall Circuit
A.W. (Minor Child) Court
The Honorable Curtis D. Palmer,
Judge
And Cause No. 50C01-1401-JT-01

A.W.(Mother)
Appellant,

v.

The Indiana Department of Child
Services

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 1 of 15
 Appellee

Friedlander, Judge.

[1] As.W. (Mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to

A.W. (Child). Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

juvenile court’s judgment.

[2] We affirm.

[3] Mother gave birth to Child in February 2011. That same month, the

Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that child was a

Child in Need of Services (CHINS). A fact-finding hearing was held, at which

the juvenile court found that Child was a CHINS pursuant to Mother’s

admission and based on its own findings that Mother was developmentally

disabled and unable to independently meet all of Child’s needs. At that time,

the juvenile court granted wardship to the DCS, but Child remained in

Mother’s custody. The court ordered Mother and Child’s Father, H.W.

(Father), to participate in services.1 At a review hearing in February 2012, the

juvenile court granted the DCS’s motion to dismiss the wardship.

[4] Within a few months of the dismissal, the DCS received reports that Mother’s

home was dirty, that she was engaging in sexual acts with men in Child’s

presence, that Mother had been talking about giving Child away, and that

1
Father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not participate in this appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 15
 Mother had set Child down in a busy parking lot. By that time, Father was no

longer living in the residence,2 and the DCS and Mother entered into an

informal adjustment. On October 9, 2012, staff at the Bowen Center reported

to the DCS that Mother was no longer able to care for herself and had

threatened to harm herself, and that she had agreed to be admitted for an

emergency evaluation. Additionally, the DCS had continuing concerns about a

number of parenting issues, including Mother’s housing instability, her inability

to read Child’s cues, the dirty condition of Mother’s home, and Mother’s failure

to properly bathe Child. Due to these concerns, the DCS determined that the

informal adjustment had been unsuccessful and filed a CHINS petition on

October 11, 2012. An initial hearing was held on the same date, and Child was

adjudicated to be a CHINS based on the court’s findings that Mother had

threatened suicide and asked for Child to be removed. Child was placed in

foster care.

[5] The juvenile court issued its dispositional order on November 13, 2012.

Pursuant to the order, Mother was required to participate in home-based

therapy, continue with Rehabilitative Service Provider services through the

Bowen Center, participate in supervised visitation with Child, attend individual

therapy at the Bowen Center, and cooperate with the DCS. At a subsequent

review hearing, Mother was also ordered to complete a psychological

assessment.

2
Father had moved into a residential nursing home. The record reveals that Father is no longer able to care
for himself and unlikely to ever regain the ability to do so.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 15
[6] Mother’s participation in services was sporadic at best, and she made little to no

progress in those services. A review hearing was held on March 7, 2013. In a

subsequently-issued order on the review hearing, the juvenile court found that

Mother had not complied with the case plan, noting specifically that she had

missed several appointments and visits for various reasons, including that she

was “angry with the service provider, was visiting [Child’s] father, or was out of

town without providing notice to providers or [the] DCS.” Appellant’s Appendix

at 46. The court further found that the parents had not enhanced their ability to

fulfill their parental obligations, and that “Mother’s behavior indicates a lack of

ability to care for her child, as she is unable to grasp and apply the skills that are

being taught to her through home based services.” Id. On May 30, 2013, the

DCS filed a motion for rule to show cause alleging that Mother was in violation

of the juvenile court’s orders. The juvenile court declined to hold Mother in

contempt, finding that she “lacks the mental ability to willfully disregard the

dispositional orders of this court.” Id. at 45.

[7] Another permanency hearing was held on August 1, 2013, at which Mother

failed to appear but was represented by counsel. In an order issued after the

hearing, the court found that Mother had not participated consistently in

services and visitation since April 2013. In another order issued following a

January 2, 2014 review hearing, the court found that Mother had not complied

with the case plan, had not visited with Child, and “[did] not understand how

to keep or maintain an appropriate and safe environment for her daughter.” Id.

at 38.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 15
[8] The DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights on January 14,

2014. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 27, 2014, at the

conclusion of which the juvenile court granted the petition. The juvenile court

issued a written termination order the following day, in which it set forth the

following relevant findings and conclusions:

12. The conditions that resulted in the child’s removal from the
mother’s home and placement outside of the home included
unsanitary living conditions, developmental delays and the mother not
having stable housing, she was allowing unknown men to enter her
residence and have sex with her in the presence of the child and there
was insufficient food in the house on a regular basis resulting in the
child eating cat food from off of the floor. . . .
13. The child has special needs due to developmental delays and is
receiving speech and occupational therapy services while in foster care.
The mother is unable to consistently provide these services to the
child.
14. The mother is moderately mentally handicapped and has great
difficulty in maintaining herself as her only income is from social
security and she is incapable of budgeting her monthly income to
provide both food and shelter for herself. She often reports going for
days or weeks without eating because of a lack of money. She
continues to allow men to enter her residence and have sex with her
and she then gives them money leaving her without sufficient funds to
support herself, most recently three weeks prior to this hearing.
15. A number of therapists and other service providers all testified that
the mother has made no progress in learning how to adequately parent
her child, cannot maintain stable housing and is unable, or unwilling,
to take the steps necessary to provide a safe home for herself or for her
child. The mother was unable to consistently appear for meetings with
counselors or with home based service providers as she would not be
home when transportation was arranged for her, nor would she appear
for appointments which were made for her.
16. Supervised visitation between the mother and child was stopped in
April of 2013 when the mother was unable to consistently appear for
visits or appointments for a consecutive thirty day period of time.
17. During the pendency of the CHINS action, the mother moved
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 5 of 15
 and/or was evicted from at least three residences and resides at the
Red Rock Inn motel in Plymouth. Her current place of residence
would not be suitable for a child. She is not employed but does
received monthly SSI payments.
18. The Dispositional Order in the CHINS cause required mother to
attend and participate in home based therapy and home based case
management services as well as attend supervised visits with her child.
All service providers testified that the mother was unable to make any
progress from the limited number of sessions she actually was present
for and that the mother remained unable to provide a safe environment
for the child.
19. Counselor Cathy Freet of the Bowen Center testified that she
provided behavioral health services for the mother regarding safety
concerns and self-esteem issues and attempted to help her keep men
out of her residence and stop giving away her money, but was
unsuccessful. Ms. Freet advised that it was possible that the mother
could make progress on these issues if she were to consistently attend
therapy for at least three months, but the mother was never able to do
that, and, if fact, missed approximately half of the sessions.
20. Numerous service providers testified that the mother engaged in
self-harming behaviors and has made threats of suicide in the past.
21. The Court finds that the mother’s history of missing therapy
sessions and her mental impairments make it unlikely that she will
ever make sufficient progress to safely maintain herself, much less
safely raise a child.
22. The CASA also testified that the mother remained unable to safely
parent the child and that the child was very happy and improving
greatly in the pre-adoptive foster home and recommended that
termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interests of
the child.
23. There is a reasonable probability that the conditions which
resulted in the removal from the parents’ home and placement outside
the home will not be remedied because the father’s mental and medical
impairments and the mother’s inability or unwillingness to address her
mental health needs and her inability to learn and/or implement
effective parenting and safety skills.
24. Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interests
of the child and the continuation of the parent-child relationship
threatens the well-being of the child.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 6 of 15
 Id. at 9-11. Mother now appeals.

[9] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and

reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment. Id. 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 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Thus,

if the evidence and inferences support the juvenile court’s decision, we must

affirm. Id.

[10] The juvenile court made detailed findings in its order terminating Mother’s

parental rights to Child. When the juvenile court enters 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 (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). A judgment is

clearly erroneous only if the findings do not support the juvenile court’s

conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment thereon. Quillen v.

Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 7 of 15
[11] We recognize that 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.

Although parental rights are of constitutional dimension, the law provides for

the termination of these rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet

their parental responsibilities. In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

In addition, a juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parents to

those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the

termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[12] 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.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a
child in need of services[.]

Ind. Code Ann. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (West, Westlaw current with all 2014

Public Laws of the 2014 Second Regular Session and Second Regular Technical

Session of the 118th General Assembly). The State is also required to prove

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 8 of 15
 that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child and that

there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child. I.C. § 31-35-

2-4(b)(2)(C), (D). The State’s burden of proof 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 Ann. § 31-37-14-2 (West, Westlaw current with all

2014 Public Laws of the 2014 Second Regular Session and Second Regular

Technical Session of the 118th General Assembly)). If the court finds that the

allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court

shall terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31-35-2-8 (West, Westlaw

current with all 2014 Public Laws of the 2014 Second Regular Session and

Second Regular Technical Session of the 118th General Assembly).

[13] We first address Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s findings as to

subsection (b)(2)(B) of the termination statute cited above. We note the DCS

needed to establish only one of the three requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) by

clear and convincing evidence before the juvenile court could terminate

parental rights. See In re L.V.N., 799 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Here, the

juvenile court found the DCS presented sufficient evidence to satisfy two of

those requirements, namely, that there is a reasonable probability the conditions

resulting in Child’s removal or continued placement outside Mother’s care will

not be remedied and that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses

a threat to Child’s well-being. See I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i), (ii). We focus our

inquiry on the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B)(i)—that is, whether there

was sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable probability that the conditions

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 9 of 15
 resulting in Child’s removal or continued placement outside Mother’s care will

not be remedied.

[14] In making such a determination, a juvenile court must judge a parent’s fitness

to care for his or her child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into

consideration evidence of changed conditions. In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. The court must also evaluate the parent’s habitual

patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of

future neglect or deprivation of the child. Id. In making this determination,

courts may consider evidence of a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and

alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of

adequate housing and employment. A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family &

Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The juvenile

court may also consider the parent’s response to the services offered through the

DCS. Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007), trans. denied. Moreover, the failure to exercise visitation

demonstrates a “lack of commitment to complete the actions necessary to

preserve [the] parent-child relationship.” Id. (quoting In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d

896, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)) (alteration in original). The language of

Indiana’s termination statute makes clear that “it is not just the basis for the

initial removal of the child that may be considered for purposes of determining

whether a parent’s rights should be terminated, but also those bases resulting in

the continued placement outside of the home.” In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 806

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 10 of 15
[15] In support of her argument that the DCS presented insufficient evidence to

prove that the conditions resulting in Child’s removal and continued placement

outside of the home will not be remedied, Mother argues out that her therapist,

Cathy Freet, testified that Mother could make progress toward her goals of

improving her self-esteem and addressing safety issues if she were to

consistently attend counseling for three months. According the Mother, this

testimony demonstrates that “the conditions that led to the removal of the child

could be remedied, in a relatively short amount of time.” Appellant’s Brief at 14.

[16] As an initial matter, we note that Freet testified that Mother could

“theoretically” complete services within three months if she consistently came

to counseling sessions, but that “without any history of that happening, I’m not

sure I’m able to give a time frame where she would be able to complete her

goals.” Transcript at 72. Thus, Freet’s testimony regarding Mother’s ability to

not only complete services, but to successfully address her parenting issues, was

speculative at best. In any event, Freet also testified that Mother did not attend

counseling consistently and would often cancel sessions or simply fail to show

up. Accordingly, even assuming that Mother could make progress if she

attended counseling, the juvenile court had ample reason to believe that Mother

would not attend counseling, and therefore make no progress. Moreover,

Mother failed to exercise supervised visitation, and she did not successfully

complete any of the services ordered. All of the service providers agreed that

Mother had made little to no progress toward addressing her parenting

deficiencies. The juvenile court’s finding that the conditions leading to Child’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 11 of 15
 removal and continued placement outside the home would not be remedied is

supported by the evidence.

[17] Mother also argues that the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination was in

Child’s best interest was unsupported by the evidence. In determining whether

termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the juvenile court

is required to look beyond the factors identified by the DCS and consider the

totality of the evidence. In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 2778 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In so

doing, the juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of

the child, and the court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before

terminating the parent-child relationship. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of

Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “A parent’s historical

inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a

current inability to provide the same will support a finding that termination of

the parent-child relationship is in the child’s best interests.” Castro v. State Office

of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

“Additionally, a child’s need for permanency is an important consideration in

determining the best interests of a child, and the testimony of the service

providers may support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.”

In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[18] Mother takes issue with several of the juvenile court’s findings supporting its

determination that termination is in Child’s best interests. First, Mother notes

that the juvenile court made specific findings that Child suffers from

developmental delays and that Mother is moderately mentally handicapped.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 12 of 15
 Mother argues that these facts should not be “used against” her because she

“likely understands the difficulties that may be imposed by having

developmental delays, and it could be a benefit to understand such delays[.]”

Appellant’s Brief at 11. It is quite clear from our review of the juvenile court’s

order, however, that it did not find that termination was in Child’s best interests

based on Mother’s or Child’s mental disabilities. Instead, the court made note

of Mother’s mental condition as a possible reason for her failure to make

progress in services and address her parenting deficiencies. Similarly, the

juvenile court made note of Child’s developmental disabilities in reference to

the additional services she needs and Mother’s inability to meet those needs.

When viewed in context, these findings support the juvenile court’s

determination that termination of the parent-child relationship was in Child’s

best interests.

[19] Mother also notes that the juvenile court found that Mother had great difficulty

budgeting her income to provide food for herself and maintain a safe and

suitable home. According to Mother, however, this difficulty stemmed from

the fact that when Child was removed, Mother lost additional social security

income paid for the benefit of Child. Thus, Mother argues that her financial

condition “should not be used against [her] because if [M]other were to receive

both checks from social security she would likely have enough income in to

[sic] maintain adequate food and shelter for both she and her child.” Id. at 12.

Mother also asserts that her “self-esteem may have improved once she was less

frustrated with not having enough income to secure affordable housing which

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 13 of 15
 in turn might have met some of the goals that service providers were wanting

[M]other to meet, and in addition – show [M]other’s progress.” Id. at 12-13.

Mother’s argument on these points is purely speculative. Moreover, the

juvenile court made specific findings that Mother’s financial difficulties

stemmed in large part from her inability to budget and her habit of giving her

money away to men. Mother has made no attempt to explain how an increased

income would remedy these problems. Ultimately, Mother’s argument in this

regard is nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence. The juvenile

court’s findings concerning Mother’s difficulty budgeting her income to provide

food and shelter for herself and Child support its determination that termination

of the parent-child relationship is in Child’s best interests.

[20] Finally, Mother takes issue with the juvenile court’s finding that the CASA

testified that Child was happy and progressing well in her foster home.

According to Mother, the CASA testified that Child had progressed “just

because of her age.” Id. at 13. Thus, according to Mother, “it is just as possible

that [C]hild could have shown progress in [M]other’s care as well, just because

of her age and therefore the fact that child has progressed in the pre-adoptive

foster home should not be held against [M]other[.]” Id. Mother has

mischaracterized the CASA’s testimony. On direct examination, the CASA

testified as follows:

Q: How has she progressed since the time that she was placed in foster
care or a foster home and today?
A: Well, just because of her age she has progressed, but – um – she’s
just learning and changing all the time. Um –

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 14 of 15
 Q: What do you attribute that to?
A: Her surroundings. Um – having support of people there for her, teaching
her things – um – being in a safe place.

Transcript at 103-04 (emphasis supplied). Thus, it is apparent that the CASA

believed that Child’s progress was due not only to her age, but also to her

surroundings, i.e., her pre-adoptive foster home.

[21] The juvenile court’s finding that termination of the parent-child relationship

was in Child’s best interests was amply supported by the evidence. Multiple

service providers testified that Mother had made no progress toward addressing

her parenting issues during the underlying CHINS proceedings. At the time of

the termination hearing, Mother still had not obtained safe and appropriate

housing for Child, and she did not appear to have any prospects of doing so in

the near future. The evidence demonstrated that Mother was unable to provide

for her own basic needs, much less Child’s. Moreover, Child was happy and

progressing well in her pre-adoptive foster home, and both the family case

manager and the CASA testified that termination was in Child’s best interests.

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court’s termination

decision was supported by sufficient evidence.

[22] Judgment affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1406-JT-221 | February 3, 2015 Page 15 of 15