In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.D., Minor Child, and Her Father, B.D., B.D. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 17 2015, 9:38 am
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
Danielle L. Gregory Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke
Abigail R. Miller
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary April, 17, 2015
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of A.D., Minor 49A02-1409-JT-631
Child, and Her Father, B.D., Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores,
B.D., Judge
Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Larry Bradley,
Magistrate
Cause No. 49D09-1402-JT-89
v.

Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 1 of 17
 Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Respondent B.D. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order

terminating his parental rights to A.D. (the “Child”). On March 13, 2013, the

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that the Child

was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). The CHINS petition stated that

DCS became involved with the family and the Child was removed from her

parents’ care after the Child’s mother tested positive for cocaine both during her

pregnancy and at the time of the Child’s birth. The CHINS petition further

stated that Father had failed to demonstrate either the ability or a willingness to

appropriately parent the Child. With respect to Father, the Child was

adjudicated to be a CHINS on May 3, 2013. Father was subsequently ordered

to participate in certain services. Father failed to do so.

[2] DCS filed a petition seeking the termination of Father’s parental rights to the

Child on February 19, 2014. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the

juvenile court issued an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child.

On appeal, Father contends that DCS did not provide sufficient evidence to

support the termination of his parental rights. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 2 of 17
[3] Father is the biological father of the Child, who was born on March 9, 2013.1

DCS initially became involved with the Child after the Child’s mother, who

had an extensive history of substance abuse, tested positive for cocaine both

during her pregnancy and at the time of the Child’s birth.

[4] DCS filed a petition on March 13, 2013, alleging that the Child was a CHINS.

With regard to Father, DCS alleged that Father “has not successfully

demonstrated the ability and willingness to appropriately parent [the Child],

and he is unable to ensure [the Child]’s safety and well being while in the care

and custody of [Mother].” State’s Ex. 2. Father failed to appear at hearings on

DCS’s CHINS petition on both March 13, and April 5, 2013. The juvenile

court set the matter for a fact-finding hearing on May 3, 2013. Father did not

appear for the May 3, 2013 fact-finding hearing.

[5] At the conclusion of the May 3, 2013 fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court

adjudicated the Child to be a CHINS with regard to Father. Father appeared

for a hearing on August 2, 2013, after which the juvenile court issued a

dispositional order and parental participation decree in which it ordered Father

to (1) participate in supervised visitation with the Child; (2) participate in home-

based counseling; (3) complete a parenting assessment; and (4) submit to

random drug screens. The juvenile court advised Father that failure to

participate in the court-ordered services could lead to the termination of his

1
The termination of the Child’s mother’s parental rights is not at issue in this appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 3 of 17
 parental rights to the Child. Father agreed to participate in the court-ordered

services. Father, however, failed to do so.

[6] On February 19, 2014, DCS filed a petition seeking the termination of Father’s

parental rights to the Child. The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary

termination hearing on July 30, and August 4, 2014, during which Father was

represented by counsel. Father, however, failed to appear for the proceedings

on July 30, 2014.

[7] During the termination hearing, DCS introduced evidence relating to continued

concerns regarding Father’s apparent disinterest and unwillingness to properly

care for the Child. Specifically, DCS introduced evidence which demonstrated

that Father repeatedly failed to visit with the Child or to participate in the

services offered by DCS. Father had not seen the Child since August 16, 2013,

and the juvenile court heard evidence that the Child would not even recognize

Father. DCS also introduced evidence indicating that the termination of

Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest and that its plan for the

permanent care and treatment of the Child was adoption. Father, for his part,

presented evidence which he claimed demonstrated that he was willing and able

to care for the Child despite his complete failure to participate in the court-

ordered services. Following the conclusion of the termination hearing, the

juvenile court issued an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child.

Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 4 of 17
[8] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the

traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise his child. Bester v. Lake

Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 145 (Ind. 2005). Further, we

acknowledge that the parent-child relationship is “one of the most valued

relationships of our culture.” Id. However, although parental rights are of a

constitutional dimension, the law allows for the termination of those rights

when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his responsibility as a parent. In re

T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Therefore,

parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s interests

in determining the appropriate disposition of a petition to terminate the parent-

child relationship. Id.

[9] The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent but to

protect the child. Id. Termination of parental rights is proper where the child’s

emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. The juvenile court need

not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that her physical, mental,

and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-

child relationship. Id.

[10] Father contends that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was

insufficient to support the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights.

In reviewing termination proceedings on appeal, this court will not reweigh the

evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination

of Parental Rights of S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We only

consider the evidence that supports the juvenile court’s decision and reasonable

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 5 of 17
 inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Where, as here, the juvenile court includes

findings of fact and conclusions thereon in its order terminating parental rights,

our standard of review is two-tiered. Id. First, we must determine whether the

evidence supports the findings, and, second, whether the findings support the

legal conclusions. Id.

[11] In deference to the juvenile court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we

set aside the juvenile court’s findings and judgment terminating a parent-child

relationship only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding of fact is clearly

erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it.

Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous only if the legal conclusions made by the

juvenile court are not supported by its findings of fact, or the conclusions do not

support the judgment. Id.

[12] In order to involuntarily terminate a parent’s parental rights, DCS must

establish by clear and convincing evidence that:

(A) one (1) of the following exists:
(i) the child has been removed from the parent for at least
six (6) months under a dispositional decree;
(ii) a court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-5.6
that reasonable efforts for family preservation or
reunification are not required, including a description of
the court’s finding, the date of the finding, and the
manner in which the finding was made; or
(iii) the child has been removed from the parent and has
been under the supervision of a county office of family
and children or probation department for at least fifteen
(15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months,
beginning with the date the child is removed from the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 6 of 17
 home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in
need of services or a delinquent child;
(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;
(C) termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2011). Father does not dispute that DCS presented

sufficient evidence to support the first and fourth elements set forth in Indiana

Code section 31-35-2-4(b). Father, however, claims that DCS failed to establish

the second and third elements that are required to be proven before the juvenile

court could order the involuntary termination of his parental rights.

Specifically, Father argues that DCS failed to establish that there is a reasonable

probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat

to the well-being of the Child. Father also argues that DCS failed to establish

that termination of his parental rights is in the Child’s best interests.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 7 of 17
 A. Whether DCS Presented Sufficient Evidence to Prove the
Second Element That is Required to be Proven Before a Court
May Order the Involuntary Termination of One’s Parental
Rights
[13] On appeal, Father argues that DCS failed to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the

parent-child poses a threat to the well-being of the Child.

[14] It is well-settled that because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written

in the disjunctive, the juvenile court need only find either that (1) the conditions

resulting in removal from or continued placement outside the parent’s home

will not be remedied, (2) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses

a threat to the child, or (3) the Child has been adjudicated CHINS on two

separate occasions. See In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003),

trans. denied. Therefore, where the juvenile court concludes either that (1) there

is a reasonably probability that the conditions resulting in the Child’s placement

outside the parent’s home will not be remedied, (2) there is a reasonable

probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat

to the well-being of the Child, or (3) the Child has been adjudicated a CHINS

on two separate occasions, and there is sufficient evidence in the record

supporting the juvenile court’s conclusion, it is not necessary for DCS to prove,

or for the juvenile court to find, either of the other two factors listed in Indiana

Code section 31-34-2-4(b)(2)(B). See generally In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 882

(providing that because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 8 of 17
 disjunctive, DCS need only prove and the juvenile court need only find that one

of the factors listed in that sub-section is true).

[15] Initially we note that the trial court concluded both that (1) there is a reasonably

probability that the conditions resulting in the Child’s placement outside of

Father’s home will not be remedied and (2) there is a reasonable probability

that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-

being of the Child. With respect to its conclusion that there is a reasonable

probability that the conditions resulting in the Child’s placement outside

Father’s home would not be remedied, the juvenile court stated that

There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that result in [the
Child]’s removal and continued placement outside the home will not
be remedied by her father. Due to his lack of effort in services, his
ability to appropriately parent remains unknown. His indifference
toward [the Child], as exhibited by not visiting her or asking about her,
demonstrates that he is unwilling to parent.

Appellant’s App. p. 12. Father does not challenge this conclusion. However,

we will nonetheless address the merits of Father’s claim that the evidence is

insufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s conclusion that continuation of the

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

[16] In determining whether the continuation of a parental relationship poses a

threat to a child’s well-being, a juvenile court should judge a parent’s fitness to

care for his child as of the time of the termination proceeding, taking into

consideration evidence of changed conditions. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 152.

However, the court must also consider a parent’s habitual pattern of conduct to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 9 of 17
 determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or

deprivation. Id. Again, a court need not wait until the child is irreversibly

harmed such that her physical, mental, and social development is permanently

impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. See In re T.F., 743

N.E.2d at 773. Moreover, a juvenile court “‘can reasonably consider the

services offered by [DCS] to the parent and the parent’s response to those

services.’” McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185,

199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting In re A.C.C., 682 N.E.2d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct.

App. 1997)).

[17] Here, the juvenile court determined that the continuation of the parent-child

relationship posed a threat to the Child’s well-being. In making this

determination, the juvenile court stated that

Continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to [the
Child]’s well-being in that it would pose as a barrier to obtaining
permanency for her through an adoption into the only home she has
known when her father has demonstrated [that] he is not willing to
offer her permanency.

Appellant’s App. p. 12. In support of its determination, the juvenile court

found as follows:

1. [Father] is the father of [the Child], a minor child born on March 9,
2013.
****
3. A [CHINS petition] was filed on [the Child] on March 13, 2013,
under Cause Number 49D091303JC009639 on allegations that her
mother tested positive for marijuana and cocaine throughout her
pregnancy with [the Child], having an extensive substance abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 10 of 17
 history. Allegations against [Father] included he had not
demonstrated the ability and willingness to appropriately parent and
he was unable to ensure [the Child]’s safety while in the care of her
mother.
4. [The Child] was ordered detained and placed outside the home at
the Initial Hearing held on March 13, 2013. [Father] failed to attend
the hearing.
****
6. [The Child] was found to be a child in need of services as to her
father on May 3, 2013.
7. The ChINS Court proceeded to disposition on May 3, 2013, at
which time [the Child]’s placement continued outside the home. She
had been removed for at least six (6) months prior to this termination
action being filed on February 19, 2014.
8. At disposition, the Court ordered no services for [Father] until he
made himself available to the Court.
9. [Father] appeared in court for the first time on August 2, 2013, at
which time disposition was modified to order [Father] to participate in
a parenting assessment, home based services and random screens.
10. [Father] agreed to participate in services.
11. [Father] attended one ChINS hearing. He was incarcerated for
approximately three months of the eleven months between the ChINS
filing and the Permanency Hearing.
12. To assess needs and family functioning, home based therapy and a
parenting assessment were referred.
13. Therapy was referred four times. [Father] failed to complete a full
intake.
14. Three parenting assessments were referred. [Father] failed to
complete an assessment.
15. Random drug screens were referred to assess and monitor any
treatment needs.
16. [Father] failed to undergo random screens through Mosaic
Recovery.
17. [Father] had an “on and off” relationship to [the Child]’s mother
who was still using and was noncompliant in services. [Father] also
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 11 of 17
 admitted to the family case manager that he would test positive in
October of 2013, and testified he had smoked marijuana in 2014.
18. [Father] may have visited with his daughter a few times in March
of 2013. He last exercised his parenting time in August of 2013 when
he left early.
19. Parenting time was suspended for [Father] in November of 2013
until he began participating in services. He failed to do so.
20. Since his one parenting time session with [the Child], he has not
requested further visits or enquire[d] as to her well-being.
21. [Father] blamed his lack of participation on his employment.
22. The plan for permanency was changed from reunification to
adoption on February 7, 2014, with the Court finding that [Father] had
not done any random drug screens, failed to complete a parenting
assessment or home based counseling, and tested positive for
marijuana and opiates when the family case manager administered an
oral drug swab in October of 2014.
23. [The Child] has resided in the same foster home since her release
from the hospital after birth. She has a younger sibling residing in the
home which is pre-adoptive.
24. [The Child] has special needs which are being met by her caregiver
through physical and developmental therapy.

Appellant’s App. pp. 11-12. In light of these findings, the juvenile court

concluded that DCS established by clear and convincing evidence that the

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the Child’s well-

being.

[18] Father does not challenge the above-stated findings of fact on appeal “as they

were supported by the evidence presented.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Rather,

Father argues that the above-stated findings do not support the juvenile court’s

conclusion that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 12 of 17
 to the Child’s well-being. In support of this argument, Father refers to his

testimony which he claims demonstrates that he was able to provide shelter and

had the financial resources to provide food, clothing, care, and nurturing for the

Child. Father also claims that the record reflects that the Child was never

harmed in Father’s care or his home and that service providers indicated that

they never saw Father with the Child.

[19] It is well-established that the juvenile court, acting as a trier of fact, was not

required to believe or assess the same weight to the testimony as Father. See

Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004); Marshall v. State, 621

N.E.2d 308, 320 (Ind. 1993); Nelson v. State, 525 N.E.2d 296, 297 (Ind. 1988);

A.S.C. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Elwood, 241 Ind. 19, 25, 167 N.E.2d 460, 463

(1960); Haynes v. Brown, 120 Ind. App. 184, 189, 88 N.E.2d 795, 797 (1949),

trans. denied. Father’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

conclusion of the juvenile court effectively amounts to an invitation for this

court to reassess witness credibility and reweigh the evidence, which, again, we

will not do. See In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 879. When considered as a whole,

we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that continuation

of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the Child’s well-being.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 13 of 17
 B. Whether DCS Presented Sufficient Evidence to Prove the
Third Element That is Required to be Proven Before a Court
May Order the Involuntary Termination of One’s Parental
Rights
[20] Father also contends that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence

that termination of his parental rights was in the Child’s best interests. We are

mindful that in considering whether termination of one’s parental rights is in

the best interests of a child, the juvenile court is required to look beyond the

factors identified by DCS and look to the totality of the evidence. McBride, 798

N.E.2d at 203. In doing so, the juvenile court must subordinate the interests of

the parent to those of the child involved. Id. Furthermore, this court has

previously determined that the testimony of the case worker or Guardian Ad

Litem (“GAL”) regarding the child’s need for permanency supports a finding

that termination is in the child’s best interests. Id.; see also Matter of M.B., 666

N.E.2d 73, 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.

[21] Here, the testimony establishes that the Child has a need for permanency and

stability and that the termination of Father’s parental rights would serve the

Child’s best interests. Family Case Manger (“FCM”) Phyllis Clemons testified

that she believed that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the

Child’s best interests. Specifically, FCM Clemons testified that she believed

that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interests

because “she deserves … permanency, she deserves a safe, secure, stable home

environment. She deserves that.” Tr. p. 79. FCM Clemons testified that

permanency for a child “is a safe, secure, stable home with family, love, um,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 14 of 17
 unconditional commitment and lifelong support” and that permanency is

important for the Child “[b]ecause it provides stability.” Tr. pp. 75-76.

[22] Although Father initially agreed to complete all of the services ordered by the

juvenile court, he has “made no progress in [completing] the services ordered.”

Tr. p. 78. In fact, all of the services were eventually terminated unsuccessfully

due to Father’s lack of participation. When asked by FCM Clemons about his

lack of participation, Father repeatedly claimed that he could not visit with the

Child or complete services because “he’d been busy working.” Tr. p. 64.

Further, although Father claimed to be employed and capable of providing

financial support for the Child, Father has never provided FCM Clemons with

proof of employment and has never provided financial support for the Child.

FCM Clemons indicated that she has concerns about Father’s ability to provide

the Child with stability in light of Father’s lack of compliance in services and

lack of engagement in visitation.

[23] FCM Clemons also expressed concerns about Father’s ability to provide for the

Child’s special needs. The Child suffers from some developmental issues,

including issues with her muscle tone and her speech. As of the date of the

evidentiary hearing, she was participating in physical and developmental

therapy. Father had not demonstrated any ability—or desire—to meet the

Child’s special needs regarding her speech and developmental delays.

[24] In addition, the Child’s GAL, Vera Stewart, testified that she believed that

adoption “is the right thing to happen for [the Child].” Tr. p. 104. GAL

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 15 of 17
 Stewart further testified that she did not believe that Father should be given

additional time to complete services “[b]ecause he’s had enough time to

demonstrate [that] he wanted his child or interaction with her or any of the

programs that have been provided for him and he hasn’t done anything.” Tr.

pp. 104-05.

[25] Father concedes that he has not visited with the Child since August 16, 2013,

and that the Child has bonded with her foster mother. The record also

establishes that Father has failed to verify that he could provide the Child with a

suitable living environment and that he made no attempt to seek to have the

Child placed in his care or check on the Child’s welfare. Nevertheless, Father

argues that “his blood relationship with [the Child], his establishment of

paternity, his desire to parent her, and his ability to parent her, gives him a

superior right that should not so easily be revoked.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12.

Father, however, also concedes that “his desire to continue a parent-child

relationship with [the Child] poses a barrier to [the Child] obtaining

permanency through an adoption.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11.

[26] Despite Father’s claim to the contrary, the record demonstrates that throughout

DCS’s period of involvement with the Child, Father has displayed, at best,

indifference toward the Child. This indifference is evidenced by his claim that

he was too busy to visit the Child or to participate in services. The juvenile

court did not have to wait until the Child was irreversibly harmed such that her

physical, mental, and social development was permanently impaired before

terminating Father’s parental rights. See In re C.M., 675 N.E.2d at 1140. In

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 16 of 17
 light of the testimony of FCM Clemons and GAL Stewart, considered with

Father’s apparent indifference toward the Child and his failure to successfully

complete the court-ordered services, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient

to satisfy DCS’s burden of proving that termination of Father’s parental rights is

in the Child’s best interests. Again, Father’s claim to the contrary merely

amounts to an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will

not do. See In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 879.

Conclusion
[27] Having concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support the juvenile court’s

order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child, we affirm the judgment

of the juvenile court.

[28] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-JT-631 | April 17, 2015 Page 17 of 17