MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
09/06/2017, 11:09 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Benjamin J. Church Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Church Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Monticello, Indiana
James D. Boyer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination September 6, 2017
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of M.M. and N.H., Minor 79A02-1704-JT-749
Children, Appeal from the Tippecanoe
A.H. (Mother), Superior Court
The Honorable Faith A. Graham,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. The Honorable Tricia L.
Thompson, Magistrate
Indiana Department of Child Trial Court Cause Nos.
Services, 79D03-1607-JT-69
79D03-1607-JT-70
Appellee-Petitioner.
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 14
Statement of the Case
[1] A.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights over
her minor children M.M. and N.H. (collectively “the Children”). Mother raises
a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient
evidence to show that the termination of her parental rights was in the
Children’s best interests. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and M.M., Sr. (“Father”) were married and have two children together,
M.M. and N.H.1 On December 2, 2013, someone contacted the Indiana
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) to report that “Father was intoxicated
and battered Mother.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7. On December 19, DCS
filed petitions alleging that the Children were children in need of services
(“CHINS”). After Mother and Father failed to comply with services and
demonstrated that they were unable to care for the Children, DCS filed
petitions to terminate their parental rights.
[3] Following a hearing, the trial court granted those petitions on March 1, 2017.
In support of its order, the trial court entered the following findings and
conclusions:
1
Father’s parental rights to the Children were also terminated, but he does not participate in this appeal.
We note that Father never established his paternity of N.H., but he asserted that he was her biological father.
It is unclear when Father and Mother were married and for how long.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 14
3. Investigation revealed that law enforcement was called to the
family home on November 29, 2013. Officers found Mother and
the children outside without shoes or appropriate clothing for the
weather. Mother was crying hysterically and the children were
also crying. A large knife was visible inside the home. Mother
told officers that Father came home intoxicated and battered her
after accusing her of cheating on him. Father hit Mother
multiple times in the head and face. This was witnessed by the
children and [M.M.] attempted to get Father off of Mother.
[M.M.] told investigators that both Mother and Father had
knives during the altercation. Mother had visible injuries and
Father was arrested. Mother indicated that Father had battered
her a few months before that and was drinking on that occasion
as well. Father admitted that he was an alcoholic and had
treatment multiple times in the past. Father indicated that he
sometimes blacks out when he is drinking. Father also had
untreated mental health issues.
4. DCS filed a Verified Petition Alleging Children in Need of
Services (“CHINS”) on December 19, 2013, . . . at which time
the children remained in the home. An Initial Hearing was held
on December 30, 2013, and a CASA was appointed to represent
the best interests of the children. An amended petition was filed
on January 2, 2014.
5. The children were found to be Children in Need of Services
(“CHINS”) on February 3, 2014, after both parents admitted the
allegations in the CHINS petition.
6. On March 24, 2015, a modification hearing was held and the
children were placed in foster care. Father had moved out of the
family home in January of 2015. Mother was unable to pay the
rent with only her income. Mother and the children were evicted
and Mother was unable to secure alternate housing. At the
modification hearing, Mother and Father agreed the children
needed to be placed in foster care as neither parent could provide
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 14
for the children. The children have never been returned to the
care of either parent.
7. Pursuant to dispositional orders issued on February 3, 2014,
Father was offered the following services: home based case
management, mental health assessment and services, medication
management assessment, substance abuse assessment and
services, and establishment of paternity. Mother was offered the
following services: home based case management, mental health
assessment and services, and establishment of paternity. In
September of 2014, the parents were ordered to participate in a
domestic violence assessment and to submit budgets. These
services were exhaustive and were designed to address the
parents’ difficulties. Evaluations revealed no barriers to the
parents’ ability to participate in services and achieve
reunification.
8. Case conferences, family team meetings, and review hearings
were held periodically. DCS and CASA prepared written reports
and recommendations prior to each hearing.
9. A permanency hearing was held on September 1, 2016, at
which time the permanent plan was determined to be initiation of
proceedings for termination of parental rights and adoption.
DCS filed its petitions, and evidentiary hearings on the Verified
Petitions to Terminate Parental Rights were held on September
27, 2016, and December 6, 2016.
***
20. Mother also has a history of instability.
21. Mother struggles to maintain employment. Mother is often
unemployed or employed for less than three (3) months at a time.
During the CHINS case, Mother managed to maintain
employment at Walmart for a little over one (1) year until losing
that employment in June of 2016 due to being late and missing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 14
work. Thereafter, Mother was unemployed for three (3) months
until obtaining employment at Village Pantry just four (4)
months prior to the termination hearing. Even when employed,
Mother does not budget her income and spends money on
impulse buys, cigarettes, and dating websites instead of
necessities.
22. From December of 2013 until Father left the family residence
in January of 2015, Mother and Father resided together with the
children and changed residences approximately seven (7) times in
the first fourteen (14) months of the CHINS case. Even though
DCS assisted with deposits, rent, and/or utility bills in two (2) of
those, the family was unable to maintain either residence on their
own. Even when the family did have housing, there was very
little furniture and the CASA for Kids Fund had to purchase beds
for the children.
23. Since January of 2015, Mother has failed to maintain stable
and suitable housing for the children. Mother spent a brief time
at a shelter with the children but was refused re-admission due to
her treatment of the children and failure to clean as requested.
Mother went to Transitional Housing with the children but was
evicted within twenty-four (24) hours after she violated the rules
by “making out” with a male guest in front of the children.
Mother and the children moved into the home of Maternal
Grandmother for one (1) night but the home was so crowded that
the children had to sleep on the kitchen floor.
24. After the children were removed from Mother’s care, Mother
continued to stay with Maternal Grandmother until November of
2015, when Mother obtained an apartment. Mother’s electricity
was disconnected in September of 2016 until being reconnected
in her boyfriend’s name. Even with income of Mother and her
boyfriend, Mother was behind approximately $1500 in rent and
$300 in utilities. Mother was evicted from the apartment on
November 29, 2016. Thereafter, Mother planned to stay with her
sister for one (1) week then move into another apartment with an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 5 of 14
even higher rent of $795 per month. Even after three (3) years of
services, Mother failed to grasp that she is unable to afford such
rent.
25. When Mother did have independent housing, it was often
dirty and unsuitable for the children. Mother failed to perform
simple tasks such as laundry or removing trash. Mother failed to
take action to remedy a roach infestation until visits in the home
were suspended. After the conditions of the home improved and
visits in the home resumed, Mother failed to maintain the
improved conditions. On November 22, 2016, the home was
again cluttered and dirty with roaches crawling on the walls and
furniture during daylight. CASA, an entomologist at Purdue
University, indicated that Mother had a large infestation of
roaches and that it was likely the roaches would be transported to
a new home if Mother moved.
26. Mother completed mental health, medication, and domestic
violence assessments. Mother was diagnosed with Major
Depression. Assessments recommended medication and
individual therapy.
27. Mother failed to consistently take medication as prescribed.
Mother stopped taking prescribed medication in December of
2014 and has not participated in medication management since
March of 2015. Although Mother attended home-based case
management sessions, Mother failed to actively participate and
was resistant to recommendations. Even though Mother’s
participation improved after the children were removed, Mother
still failed to follow through with daily living tasks as directed
and ultimately lost Medicaid, food stamps, and TANF benefits
for the family. Mother failed to apply for assistance with utilities
and subsidized housing. Mother also failed to make appropriate
childcare arrangements. Mother was discharged from several
different providers for lack of participation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 6 of 14
28. Mother was very reluctant to initiate therapy. Mother missed
multiple appointments and was discharged from therapy on May
30, 2014. Mother resumed therapy in August of 2015 and then
abruptly stopped attending in January of 2016 resulting in
another discharge in June of 2016 after several months of missed
appointments. Mother thereafter failed to attend four (4)
scheduled intake appointments for therapy with a new agency.
Mother refuses to participate in therapy despite Mother’s
boyfriend’s reported fear that Mother may hurt herself or their
unborn baby.
29. Mother was found in contempt for failure to participate in
services in July of 2014. Mother was also found in contempt a
second time in August of 2015 for failing to remain drug free.
Mother had used synthetic marijuana and was unable to account
for $1400 of income.
30. At the onset of the CHINS case, the children remained in
Mother’s care despite an observed lack of structure and
supervision. Mother was not open to parenting education or
suggestions and was reluctant to discipline the children or impose
consequences for poor behaviors. While Mother and the
children were in the shelter, Mother yelled inappropriately at the
children and had to be prompted to care for them.
31. After the children were removed, Mother attended and was
prepared for most scheduled visits. Mother’s ability to discipline
the children improved and visits progressed to a semi-supervised
level and then to overnight visits. During the overnight visits,
Mother failed on multiple occasions to follow a safety plan
developed due to [M.M.] inappropriately touching [N.H.]. On
one occasion, Mother allowed [M.M., N.H.,] and other children
to sleep in the same bed.
32. Mother’s overnight visits were temporarily suspended in May
of 2016 after Mother allowed a boyfriend, [T.M.], to move into
the home. [T.M.] was the second boyfriend Mother had during
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 7 of 14
the CHINS case. Background checks on [T.M.] revealed a
history of domestic violence, residential entry, public
intoxication, and false informing. Overnight visits resumed after
[T.M.] was approved to participate. However, overnight visits
were again suspended after [T.M.] spanked [N.H.] with a belt,
threw a walnut at [M.M.] which hit [M.M.] in the eye, and tied
[N.H.]’s bike to a dog causing an injury to [N.H.] when the dog
took off running. [T.M.] was also arrested for battery on a
neighbor of his ex-girlfriend. Mother remained in a relationship
with [T.M.] and believes it is appropriate for him to be around
the children unsupervised. As a result, visits returned to a fully
supervised level at a facility. Mother is currently pregnant by
[T.M.]
33. When the children were in the family home, the parents
struggled to provide necessary care for the children. The children
often wore dirty clothes and had no socks or underwear. Mother
was observed to throw away the children’s clothes instead of
washing them. At one point, [M.M.] only had two (2) pairs of
pants and one (1) shirt that could be worn to school. The parents
failed to schedule and attend medical appointments for the
children and failed to ensure [M.M.] attended therapy
appointments.
34. The children have been involved in a CHINS case for three
(3) years and have been removed from the home for nearly two
(2) years, the majority of [N.H.]’s life. Since removal, [M.M.]
has attended and enjoyed play therapy. The children have been
placed in a concurrent foster home since August of 2015 and are
doing well in that home. The concurrent foster parents are able
to identify the needs of the children and to meet those needs.
The plan for the children is adoption by the concurrent foster
parents.
35. CASA, John Obermeyer, supports termination of parental
rights and [thinks] the plan of adoption by the concurrent foster
parents [is] in the best interests of the child. CASA notes the lack
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 8 of 14
of progress made by the parents and safety concerns related to
Mother’s boyfriend. CASA believes that allowing parents
additional time to address their issues would be harmful to the
children.
36. Both parents love the children but neither has the ability to
provide for the children’s needs. Both parents are currently
homeless, which is the reason for the children’s removal. Father
has made no real effort to be reunified with the children since he
left the family home in January of 2015. Mother failed to
maintain limited progress and has not demonstrated an ability to
provide safe and suitable housing for the children. Mother
started the CHINS case in a violent relationship and there are
similar concerns with Mother’s current boyfriend. It is not safe
for the children to be in the care of either parent. All imaginable
services have been offered and nothing is singularly different in
today’s circumstances since the time of removal. To continue the
parent-child relationship[s] would be detrimental to the children.
The children need permanency now.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There is a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in
removal of the children from the parents’ care or the reasons for
continued placement outside the home will not be remedied.
Despite nearly three (3) years of services, neither parent has
improved their ability to provide for the needs of the children.
Both parents are currently homeless and struggle to provide for
their own needs. There is no reasonable probability that either
parent can maintain stability for the children.
2. Continuation of the parent-child relationships poses a threat to
the well-being of the children. The children need stability in life.
The children need parents with whom the children can form a
permanent and lasting bond and who will provide for the
children’s emotional, psychological, and physical wellbeing. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 9 of 14
children’s well-being would be threatened by keeping the children
in parent-child relationships with either parent.
3. DCS has a satisfactory plan of adoption for the care and
treatment of the children following termination of parental rights.
The children can be adopted and there is reason to believe an
appropriate permanent home has or can be been found for the
children as a sibling group.
4. For the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of [the
Children] that the parental rights of [Mother and Father] be
terminated.
Id. at 7-12. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] We begin our review of this appeal by acknowledging that “[t]he traditional
right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe
Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996),
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. Schultz v. Porter Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re K.S.), 750
N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Termination of a 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 10 of 14
rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or
her parental responsibilities. Id. at 836.
[5] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS
is required to allege and prove:
(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.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS’s “burden of proof in termination of parental
rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child
Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-
14-2).
[6] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Ofc. of
Family & Children (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 11 of 14
denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that
are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the trial
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.
Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.
[7] Here, in terminating Mother’s parental rights, the trial court entered specific
findings of fact and conclusions thereon. When a trial court’s judgment
contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of
review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Ofc. 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 trial court’s
decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
[8] Mother’s challenge on appeal is very narrow. Mother only challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to show that termination is in the best interests of the
Children. In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best
interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the
evidence. A.S. v. Ind. Dep’t. of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212, 224 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010). “A parent’s historical inability to provide adequate housing,
stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 12 of 14
will support a finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the
child’s best interests.” Castro v. State Ofc. 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 at 224 (emphasis added).
[9] Mother’s contentions on appeal are summed up as follows:
Mother has a strong bond with the children. She exercises her
visitation, and has consistently expressed her desire to maintain
her parental bond with them. Despite her repeated highs and
lows during the underlying CHINS proceedings, her testimony at
the termination hearing shows she is attempting to make progress
for the benefit of herself and her children. The bond this family
shares should not be severed when so firmly-rooted, and while
Mother is still making efforts towards improvement.
***
While [Mother] has certainly undergone setbacks throughout this
matter, she has expended effort to better herself, even until the
hearing date. Her desire to become a better parent, coupled with
the strong bond she shares with her children should preclude a
finding that termination is in the children’s best interest.
Appellant’s Br. at 12-13. But Mother’s contentions amount to a request that we
reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
[10] John Obermeyer, the Court Appointed Special Advocate for the Children,
testified that he believes that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 13 of 14
Children’s best interests. Likewise, the family case manager testified that
adoption and termination of parental rights is in the Children’s best interests.
The totality of the evidence, including Mother’s historical inability to provide a
safe and stable home and her refusal to take advantage of the resources DCS
provided her during the CHINS proceedings over the course of almost three
years, supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination of Mother’s
parental rights is in the Children’s best interests. Thus, the trial court did not
err when it terminated Mother’s parental rights as to the Children.
[11] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1704-JT-749 | September 6, 2017 Page 14 of 14