In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.S. (Minor Child) and X.S. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 18 2018, 10:55 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kyle K. Dugger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General
Bloomington, Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary April 18, 2018
Termination of the Parent-Child Court of Appeals Case No.
Relationship of A.S. (Minor 53A01-1710-JT-2340
Child) Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
and Court
The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin,
X.S. (Father), Judge
Appellant-Respondent, Trial Court Cause No.
53C07-1607-JT-472
v.

Indiana Department of Child
Services,
Appellee-Petitioner

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 1 of 12
 Case Summary
[1] X.S. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter,

arguing that the trial court should have granted his motion to continue the

termination hearing. We agree and remand for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History
[2] This is an appeal from the termination of Father’s parental rights by Monroe

Circuit Court 7, but the case revolves around Father’s history of drug-related

criminal charges in Monroe Circuit Court 2. In 2007, Father was charged with

Class B felony possession of cocaine (“Case 1186”). He pled guilty and was

sentenced to twenty years with ten years suspended. He was released to

probation in March 2012. Two years later, in April 2014, Father was charged

with Class D felony possession of cocaine, Class D felony strangulation, and

Class A misdemeanor domestic battery (“Case 468”). At the same time, the

State petitioned to revoke Father’s probation in Case 1186. Father pled guilty

as charged in Case 468 and was sentenced to one year in Community

Corrections, to be served on home detention. The court also ordered Father to

serve one year of his suspended sentence in Case 1186 on home detention,

running consecutive to the sentence in Case 468, for a total of two years on

home detention.

[3] On December 9, 2014, while Father was serving his home-detention sentence,

his daughter, A.S., was born. At birth, A.S. exhibited drug-withdrawal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 2 of 12
 symptoms, so hospital staff ran a drug screen, which came back positive for

cocaine. The Department of Child Services (DCS) was contacted and began

working with Father and A.S.’s mother.1 DCS offered the parents substance-

abuse treatment through its Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Team (START)

program. Both parents, however, continued to use illegal drugs and failed drug

screens. On December 22, two weeks after A.S. was born, DCS removed her

from the home. The next day, DCS filed a child in need of services (CHINS)

petition in Circuit Court 7.

[4] One week after A.S. was removed from the home, Father was arrested for

violating the terms of his home detention in Case 468. However, Circuit Court

2 allowed him to continue serving his sentence on home detention. In January

2015, Father voluntarily completed a substance-abuse evaluation, and it was

recommended that he begin intensive outpatient treatment (IOP). On February

12, a hearing was held on the CHINS petition, Father admitted to the

allegations, and A.S. was adjudicated a CHINS. A dispositional hearing was

scheduled for March 9. Before that hearing, Father voluntarily began IOP.

After the dispositional hearing, the court ordered Father to participate in

services with DCS, including individual therapy, IOP, and supervised visits

with A.S.

1
A.S.’s mother consented to A.S. being adopted and is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we discuss
only the facts relevant to Father’s appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 3 of 12
[5] DCS was in the process of setting up services for Father when, on April 27, he

was arrested and charged with three counts of dealing in cocaine, a Level 5

felony (“Case 397”). The charges were pending for fifteen months, and the

record includes very little information regarding what transpired in the CHINS

case over this time. We only know that Father remained incarcerated at the

Monroe County Jail, that he exercised visits with A.S. every sixty days, and

that he completed eight sections of a cognitive-skills workbook that focused on

cognition mapping, traditional versus criminal values, relationships, personal

inventories, boundaries, and anger management. Tr. Vol. II p. 39.

[6] In July 2016, Father pled guilty to one count of dealing in cocaine in Case 397.

Circuit Court 2 sentenced Father to four years in the Department of Correction

(DOC) and also ordered him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence

in Case 1186—nine years—consecutive to his sentence in Case 397, for a total

of thirteen years. The State recommended Father for Purposeful Incarceration,

which is a nine-to-eleven-month program for “chemically addicted offenders”

whose addictions “are directly related to their criminal behavior.” Purposeful

Incarceration, www.in.gov/idoc/2798.htm. The program combines group and

individual counseling to address substance-abuse recovery, rational thinking,

criminal lifestyles, dysfunctional families, work stress, anger management, and

relapse prevention. Tr. Vol. II pp. 40-41. The court followed the State’s

recommendation, referred Father to Purposeful Incarceration, and stated that it

would “modify Defendant’s sentence if he successfully complete[d] Purposeful

Incarceration.” Father’s Ex. 1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 4 of 12
[7] Less than a week after Father was sentenced in his criminal cases, DCS

petitioned to terminate his parental rights in Circuit Court 7. A termination

hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2017. Ten days before that hearing, DCS

moved to continue, and the hearing was reset for April 24. On April 24, DCS

sought another continuance, and the court rescheduled the hearing for July 6.

The trial court, on its own motion, continued the hearing until July 31. On July

10, Father moved to continue because of DCS’s failure to meet discovery

deadlines, and DCS joined his motion. The hearing was once again

rescheduled, this time for September 5. Father sought another continuance on

August 24, stating that he would graduate from Purposeful Incarceration on

September 29 and that the criminal court had guaranteed him a sentence

modification upon graduation. He asked that the hearing be scheduled after he

completed Purposeful Incarceration. The trial court denied Father’s motion,

and the termination hearing was held on September 5.

[8] The morning of the hearing, Father renewed his motion to continue, but his

request was denied. Father attended the hearing telephonically because in-

person attendance “could cause a delay in graduating from” Purposeful

Incarceration. Tr. Vol. II p. 4. Father testified that he expected to be released

from prison by the end of 2017 based on his completion of Purposeful

Incarceration. Father believed he would be released to a transitional housing

program and that he would be re-hired by his former employer. Regarding

A.S., Father continued to have supervised visits with her every sixty days in

prison and had not missed a visit. They ate together, read, and played. At the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 5 of 12
 visit before the termination hearing, A.S. waved goodbye to Father and blew

him a kiss.

[9] Family Case Manager (FCM) Branan Neeley stressed that Father’s release date

was still listed as 2022 and that he had an “extensive criminal history”

involving cocaine. Id. at 36. FCM Neeley stated that Father had not

participated in any services with DCS because he had been incarcerated since

April 2015. At the time of the arrest, DCS was working on getting Father’s

services in place, but it had not made any referrals for him. See id. at 33.

However, FCM Neeley acknowledged that Father had completed eight sections

of the cognitive-skills workbook while in jail and was about to graduate from

Purposeful Incarceration.

[10] FCM Neeley emphasized that Purposeful Incarceration does not specifically

address parenting skills. However, when asked about Father’s parenting skills,

FCM Neeley said that he had never observed Father with A.S. He admitted

that all of the reports he had received about Father’s parenting were positive:

Father asks A.S. age-appropriate questions, asks DCS case workers about A.S.’s

development and routine, and is attuned to A.S.’s needs during visits. FCM

Neeley said, “[T]here [have] never been any concerns about his appropriateness

with [A.S.], his discussions with her, um and that kind of stuff.” Id. at 42.

FCM Neeley also acknowledged that A.S. is affectionate toward Father during

their visits, sitting in his lap while he reads to her.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 6 of 12
[11] Throughout the duration of the CHINS and termination proceedings, A.S. has

been placed with the same foster-care family. The home was pre-adoptive and

DCS’s plan was for A.S. to be adopted by the family should Father’s parental

rights be terminated. After the hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact

and conclusions and terminated Father’s parental rights to A.S.

[12] Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
[13] Father raises two issues on appeal. First, he claims that the trial court should

have granted his motion to continue. Second, he argues that the evidence is

insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights. Because we agree

with Father that the trial court should have granted his continuance, we do not

address his second argument or take a position on the merits of the decision to

terminate his parental rights.

[14] Generally, the decision to grant or deny a motion to continue is within the

sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of

discretion. In re J.E., 45 N.E.3d 1243, 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s conclusion is clearly against

the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the

reasonable and probable deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. When a

motion to continue has been denied, an abuse of discretion will be found if the

moving party has demonstrated good cause for granting the motion, but we will

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 7 of 12
 reverse the trial court’s decision only if the moving party can show that he was

prejudiced by the denial. Id.

[15] Father analogizes his situation to that of the father in Rowlett v. Vanderburgh

County Office of Family and Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans.

denied. In Rowlett, the father was arrested and charged with dealing in

methamphetamine two months after his children were adjudicated CHINS.

The father was unable to participate in services with the Office of Family and

Children (OFC) because of his incarceration, but he participated in “nearly

1,100 hours of individual and group services” directed at reunification with his

children. 841 N.E.2d at 622. The OFC petitioned to terminate the father’s

parental rights while he was incarcerated. At a pre-trial conference in January

2005, the father informed the court that he would be released in June 2005 and

asked that the termination hearing be set after his release. The court denied his

request and set the hearing for April 2005, approximately six weeks before the

father’s release date. The father’s parental rights were terminated.

[16] The father appealed and claimed that the trial court abused its discretion when

it denied his motion for continuance. He argued that he should have been

given the opportunity to engage in reunification services and establish himself

within his community. The OFC, on the other hand, stated that the children

had been removed from the father for over two years and needed permanency.

The children had been placed with their maternal grandmother for the duration

of the CHINS and termination proceedings, and the OFC’s plan was for her to

adopt the children if the father’s rights were terminated.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 8 of 12
[17] This Court held that good cause for granting the father’s continuance existed

because it would have granted him an opportunity to “participate in services

offered by the OFC directed at reunifying him with his children upon his release

from prison.” Id. at 619. The OFC would have to wait only six weeks for the

father to be released. We also held that the father was prejudiced by the

decision because the trial court assessed his ability to care for his children “as of

the date of the hearing he sought to have continued.” Id. We went on to say

that termination was “particularly harsh where Father, while incarcerated,

participated in numerous services and programs . . . which would be helpful to

him in reaching his goal of reunification with his children.” Id. Because the

OFC’s plan was for the children to be adopted by the maternal grandmother

and they had been in her care since removal, we concluded that continuation of

the termination hearing “would have little immediate effect upon the children.”

Id. We ultimately concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

the father’s motion for continuance and that the hearing should have been reset

“after Father was given a sufficient period following his release to demonstrate

his willingness and ability to assume parental duties.” Id. at 620.

[18] We agree that Father is situated similarly to the father in Rowlett. First, like the

father in Rowlett, Father was on the verge of significant, favorable change in his

incarceration status. He was twenty-four days shy of graduating from

Purposeful Incarceration, which would result in a guaranteed sentence

modification. Second, any additional delay in the termination proceedings

would not negatively impact A.S. Similar to the children in Rowlett, A.S. has

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 9 of 12
 been in the same foster home since her removal, and DCS’s plan was for her

foster parents to adopt her if Father’s parental rights were terminated. A.S. was

also bonded with Father and was affectionate toward him, sitting in his lap

when he read to her and blowing him kisses and waving goodbye. For these

reasons, we conclude that good cause existed at the time of Father’s motion and

that the trial court should have continued the case at least long enough to see if

Father graduated from Purposeful Incarceration and, if so, the extent to which

Circuit Court 2 modified his sentence.

[19] Father has also shown that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion. The

denial allowed DCS to argue repeatedly, and the court to find, that Father

would not be released from prison until 2022, even though everyone involved

knew that there was a very good chance that Father would be released much

sooner. Like the father in Rowlett, Father was judged as an incarcerated parent,

rather than as a parent whose incarceration status was about to change. See id.

at 619.

[20] DCS contends that Rowlett is distinguishable from this case for two reasons.

First, it claims that “unlike in Rowlett, Father had the opportunity to participate

in reunification services. Instead, Father chose criminal activity over the

opportunity to engage in reunification services and parent [A.S.].” Appellee’s

Br. p. 16 (citations omitted). But Father had no more of an opportunity to

engage in reunification services than the father in Rowlett. Both Father and the

father in Rowlett were arrested two months after their CHINS adjudication

hearings and remained incarcerated for the duration of their CHINS and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 10 of 12
 termination proceedings. As we did in Rowlett, we credit Father for the efforts

he has taken while incarcerated to better himself and reunify with A.S.; he

completed multiple sections of a cognitive-skills workbook and was about to

graduate from Purposeful Incarceration. DCS’s argument is also flawed

because Father did voluntarily engage in services before his arrest. Specifically,

he completed a substance-abuse evaluation and began IOP. To the extent that

he did not participate in additional services, FCM Neeley testified that, at the

time of Father’s April 2015 arrest, DCS had not yet set up any services for

Father.

[21] DCS also emphasizes that the father in Rowlett had an imminent release date

when his termination hearing was held, whereas Father’s release date was

approximately five years away. DCS acknowledges that Father would “likely

receive a sentencing modification for completing Purposeful Incarceration” but

contends that the extent of the modification was uncertain. Id. at 15 (emphasis

added). Initially, we note that the modification of Father’s sentence wasn’t just

“likely”; it had already been promised should Father graduate from Purposeful

Incarceration. Circuit Court 2 explicitly “agree[d] to modify Defendant’s

sentence if he successfully complete[d] Purposeful Incarceration.” Father’s Ex.

1. And while we acknowledge that the extent of the expected modification was

unknown, we do not find the distinction to be dispositive. Even though

Father’s anticipated release date was 2022 at the time of the hearing, it is

undisputed that he was on track to graduate from Purposeful Incarceration in

less than one month and that he would then receive a potentially significant

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 11 of 12
 modification of his sentence. Because of this, Circuit Court 7 should have

continued the case long enough to see if Father completed Purposeful

Incarceration and, if so, the extent of the sentence modification granted by

Circuit Court 2. If the modification made Father’s release date imminent, a

Rowlett-style continuance would have been in order, giving Father the

opportunity to engage with DCS and demonstrate his willingness and ability to

parent A.S.2 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the termination of Father’s

parental rights and remand for further proceedings.

[22] Reversed and remanded.

May, J., and Altice, J., concur.

2
A review of the dockets in Case 397 and Case 1186 shows that Father did graduate from Purposeful
Incarceration and that his sentence was modified. On October 10, 2017—thirty-five days after Father’s
continuance was denied—the DOC submitted a “Progress Report, Treatment Summary, and Release
Recovery Plan” to Circuit Court 2. A sentence-modification hearing was held, and on December 6, the court
found Father was eligible for Re-Entry Court and referred him to that program. The Re-Entry Court
accepted Father’s case and ordered that Father was to be released from prison, that he was to participate in
the Community Transition Program, and that the remaining sentences in Cases 397 and 1186 be stayed.
Father was released from prison on January 22, 2018. Father is expected to be released from the Community
Transition Program on May 21, 2018, and is to continue participating in Re-Entry Court until January 2020.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1710-JT-2340 | April 18, 2018 Page 12 of 12