In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.T., V.T., and D.T. (Minor Children) J v. (Mother) v. The 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 Dec 20 2019, 8:58 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ronald J. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
The Moore Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Richmond, Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Termination of the December 20, 2019
Parent-Child Relationship of Court of Appeals Case No.
R.T., V.T., and D.T. (Minor 19A-JT-1553
Children); Appeal from the Randolph Circuit
J.V. (Mother), Court
The Honorable Jay L. Toney,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
68C01-1809-JT-157
68C01-1809-JT-158
The Indiana Department of
68C01-1809-JT-159
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 1 of 6
 Statement of the Case
[1] J.V. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with

her children R.T. (“R.T.”), V.T. (“V.T.”), and D.T. (“D.T.) (collectively, “the

children”). She argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the

terminations. Specifically, Mother argues that the Department of Child

Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is

a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children. Concluding that

there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child

relationships, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

[2] We affirm.

Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient
evidence to support the terminations.

Facts
[3] Mother is the parent of son R.T., who was born in 2006; daughter V.T, who

was born in 2008; and son D.T., who was born in 2010. DCS removed the

children from Mother’s care in October 2015 because of domestic violence and

improper supervision. The children were adjudicated to be Children in Need of

Services (“CHINS”) in November 2015. The trial court ordered Mother to: (1)

1
The trial court also terminated Father’s (“Father”) parental rights. Father, however, is not a party to this
appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6
 enroll in programs recommended by professionals; (2) keep all appointments

with providers; (3) obtain and maintain suitable housing and a legal means of

income; (4) assist in the formulation and implementation of a plan to protect

the children from abuse and neglect; (5) abstain from the use of illegal

controlled substances; (6) complete a parenting assessment; (7) submit to

random drug screens; (8) participate in home-based counseling; (9) complete a

parenting assessment, and (10) attend supervised visits with her children.

[4] Three years later, Mother still had not complied with the trial court’s order. In

September 2018, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

Testimony at the termination hearing revealed that Mother: (1) had continued

to test positive for illegal substances; (2) was unable to control her children

during visitation; and (3) had not obtained suitable housing. At the time of the

hearing, Mother was living with a boyfriend who had molested both R.T. and

V.T. at different times. Although the abuse had been substantiated, Mother did

not believe that it had occurred. She planned to continue living with her

boyfriend because that was her home.

[5] The testimony further revealed that R.T. and D.T. were living with their

paternal grandparents, and the plan for their care and treatment was adoption

by the grandparents. V.T. was living with a foster family, and the plan for her

care and treatment was also adoption by the foster parents. The testimony also

revealed that V.T.’s foster parents had been so concerned about V.T.’s

outbursts, which included headbanging and biting herself, that they had

scheduled and paid for V.T. to participate in a diagnostic program. According

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6
 to CASA Teresa Ramsey (“CASA Ramsey”), the foster parents had been

“desperate to get some help for [V.T.].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). CASA Ramsey also

testified that termination and adoption were in the children’s best interests.

[6] Following the hearing, the trial court issued detailed ten-page orders

terminating the parental relationships between Mother and R.T., V.T., and

D.T. Mother now appeals the terminations.

Decision
[7] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In

re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of

the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Id. at

1188. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where a child’s

emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. 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. Id.

[8] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS 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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6
 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) 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.

IND. CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by

clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d

1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[9] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh

the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625,

628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences

to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the

trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand.

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.

[10] Here, Mother’s sole argument is that DCS failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that it had a satisfactory plan for the children’s care and

treatment. She specifically argues that “[v]ery little evidence was offered

regarding placement’s relationships with the children.” Mother’s Br. at 12.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[11] This Court has previously explained that the plan for the care and treatment of

the children need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the

direction in which the children will be going after the parent-child relationships

are terminated. In re L.B., 889 N.E.2d 326, 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Here, the

plan for V.T. is adoption by her foster parents, and the plan for R.T. and D.T. is

adoption by their paternal grandparents. These are satisfactory plans. See In re

J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).2 Mother’s arguments

challenging these plans are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence. This we

cannot do. See In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d at 628. There is sufficient evidence to

support the termination of the parent-child relationships.

[12] Affirmed.

May, J., and Crone, J., concur.

2
Mother also argues that because DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had a
satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children, DCS has consequently failed to prove that it was
in the best interests of the children to have the parent-child relationships terminated. Because we have found
sufficient evidence that DCS had a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children, we need not
address this issue.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1553 | December 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6