IN RE: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Ay.B. (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] J.B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationships with her five children, Ay.B. (“Ay.B.”), All.B. (“All.B.”), An.B. (“An.B.”), Ale.B. (“Ale.B.”), and As.B. (“As.B.”) (collectively “the Children”), claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support the terminations.¹ Specifically, Mother argues that the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationships is in the Children's best interests. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child relationships, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

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

Facts

[3] Father and twenty-eight-year-old Mother (collectively “Parents”) are the parents of son, Ay.B., who was born in April 2014; daughter, All.B., who was born in April 2015; daughter, An.B., who was born in March 2016; son, Ale.B., who was born in April 2018; and son, As.B., who was born in November 2020.

[4] Parents, who were still married at the time of the termination hearing, first became involved with DCS in 2019, when DCS substantiated allegations of environmental, medical, and educational neglect against Parents. According to a December 2019 preliminary inquiry, the substantiated educational neglect allegation concerned Ay.B., who was enrolled in kindergarten. Ay.B. had been diagnosed with developmental delays and needed further testing, but his excessive absenteeism had interfered with the school's ability to administer the necessary tests. In addition, according to the preliminary inquiry, the substantiated environmental neglect allegation concerned Parents’ home, which was in disarray and had food and trash on the floors throughout the house. In December 2019, Parents entered into an informal adjustment with DCS.

[5] One month later, in January 2020, DCS alleged that Parents were not cooperating with the informal adjustment and filed a petition alleging that the four oldest children were CHINS. The petition specifically alleged that five-year-old Ay.D. had missed thirty days of school in the fall of 2019, had had an ear infection that had not been properly treated and had led to hearing loss, and had a heart murmur that required further testing. The petition also alleged that All.B. had developmental delays and was in need of services. In addition, the petition alleged that the family had a history of missing medical appointments and that the family's pediatrician had closed the family out of services. Before holding a CHINS factfinding hearing, the trial court discharged the informal adjustment as unsuccessful.

[6] In November 2020, DCS again substantiated allegations of medical, educational, and environmental neglect against Parents. In January 2021, DCS filed a second petition alleging that the Children were CHINS. Four months later, in May 2021, DCS removed the Children from the home on an emergency basis because of domestic violence. DCS initially placed the Children in foster care. At that time, some of the older children were complaining about tooth pain, and dental examinations revealed that these children's teeth had decayed to the gum line. In August 2021, DCS placed the Children with Mother's sister (“Mother's sister”) and her husband (“Mother's sister's husband”).

[7] The trial court adjudicated the Children to be CHINS in August 2021. In October 2021, the trial court issued a dispositional order requiring Mother to participate in reunification services, including home-based case management services, a parenting assessment, a mental health assessment, and supervised visits with the Children. DCS referred Mother to the appropriate service providers.

[8] Thereafter, Mother rarely participated in supervised visits with the Children. She frequently cancelled the visits or failed to attend them. Mother participated in a supervised visit with the Children in November 2021.

[9] By January 2022, the service providers to whom DCS had referred Mother had closed the referrals because Mother had missed or cancelled nearly all of her appointments. Also, in January 2022, the State charged Father with Level 5 felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery after Father had battered Mother with a sledgehammer. In addition, the trial court issued an order prohibiting Father from contacting Mother.

[10] The following month, February 2022, the trial court found Mother to be in contempt because she had failed to participate in services. In addition to the previously ordered services, the trial court ordered Mother to: (1) complete a psychological assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; (2) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; and (3) submit to random drug screens. DCS again referred Mother to the appropriate service providers.

[11] In March 2022, the State charged Father with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for violating the January 2022 protective order. Parents had not complied with the no-contact order and had continued to live together. Parents stayed together until March or May 2022, and Mother subsequently filed a dissolution petition.

[12] By June 2022, Mother had still failed to participate in court-ordered services. In addition, she had “made threats towards DCS personnel, service providers, and placement to the point that a no-contact order ha[d] been filed.” (Ex. Vol. 4 at 82). Further, Mother had not visited the Children since November 2021. The trial court temporarily suspended Mother's visits with the Children and “afford[ed] Mother ․ a six[-]week period in which to show compliance with services to re-evaluate the suspension of visitation.” (Ex. Vol. 4 at 83).

[13] In August 2022, the trial court granted DCS’ motion to stop all services because Mother still had not complied with the court-ordered services. One month later, in September 2022, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental relationships with the Children.

[14] The trial court held a four-day termination hearing in May and June 2023 and January 2024. At the hearing, the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, DCS family case manager Melissa Adams (“FCM Adams”) testified that she had been the family's case manager from January 2021 until March 2023. According to FCM Adams, after Mother and Father had separated, Mother had refused to tell FCM Adams where Mother was living. At one point, Mother gave her mailing address as her father's home. However, FCM Adams learned that Mother's father's house had been condemned but that Mother could still get mail there. FCM Adams further testified that Mother had told FCM Adams that Mother was “staying with people[,]” but “she didn't feel [that FCM Adams] needed to have their address” because they were not involved in the case. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 156). FCM Adams also testified that termination was in the Children's best interests.

[15] DCS family case manager Mary Hudson (“FCM Hudson”), who had been the family's case manager since March 2023, testified that the Children were doing well with Mother's sister and Mother's sister's husband, who were a pre-adoptive placement. FCM Hudson, who had monthly contact with the Children, further testified that the Children had affection and stability in Mother's sister's home. In addition, the Children attended school and medical appointments on a regular basis. FCM Hudson also testified that termination was in the Children's best interests.

[16] CASA Diana Fagg (“CASA Fagg”) testified that she had visited the Parents’ home before the Children had been removed and had noticed feces, pizza, and trash on the floor. CASA Fagg had also noticed that the Children had no stability or routine in Parents’ home. According to CASA Fagg, termination was in the Children's best interests.

[17] Further, Hamilton Center Care Manager Sarah Logsdon (“CM Logsdon”), who provided skills services in Mother's sister's home to eight-year-old All.B. and five-year-old Ale.B., testified that the Children had a bond with Mother's sister and Mother's sister's husband and were comfortable in their home. CM Logsdon further testified that it was in the Children's best interests to remain with Mother's sister and Mother's sister's husband.

[18] Also, at the termination hearing, Mother testified that her dissolution petition was still pending. Further, according to Mother, at that time, she was living with her boyfriend, whom she referred to as her spouse, and his two children. She did not testify whether her boyfriend's house could accommodate five more children or whether her boyfriend had even agreed that the Children could live in his home. Mother also testified that she had been working at Little Caesar's for a few days, and before working at Little Caesar's, she had worked at Arby's for two weeks.

[19] In February 2024, the trial court issued five separate eighteen-page orders terminating Mother's parental relationships with the Children. In these orders, the trial court found that DCS had met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the Children's best interests.

[20] Mother now appeals the termination of the parental-relationships with the Children.

Decision

[21] 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 children 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.

[22] 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 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) (2023).² DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[23] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of 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.

[24] Mother's sole argument is that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was in the Children's best interests. In determining whether a 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. In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The trial court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. A child's need for permanency is a central consideration in determining the child's best interests. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009).

[25] In addition, a parent's historical inability to provide a suitable environment coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Lang v. Starke County Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Also, a parent's failure to exercise the right to visit her children demonstrates a “lack of commitment to complete the actions necessary to preserve [the] parent-child relationship[.]” In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Moreover, this Court has previously held that the recommendations of the service providers to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal would not be remedied, is sufficient to show clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children's best interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[26] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Mother has historically been unable to provide the Children with a suitable environment and was unable to provide the same at the time of the termination hearing. Specifically, before the Children had been removed from Parents’ home, the home was in disarray and had feces, food, and trash on the floor. During the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, after Mother had left Father, Mother refused to tell FCM Adams where Mother was living. At one point, Mother gave her mailing address as her father's home. However, FCM Adams learned that Mother's father's house had been condemned but that Mother could still get mail there. Also, during the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, Mother had told FCM Adams that Mother was staying with people, but she did not feel that FCM Adams needed to know their addresses because they were not involved in the case. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother was living with her boyfriend and his two children. There was no testimony about whether the boyfriend's house could accommodate five more children or whether the boyfriend was even willing for the Children to live at his home.

[27] Also, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not visited the children for two years. Moreover, FCM Adams, FCM Hudson, and CASA Fagg all testified that termination was in the Children's best interests. Lastly, the trial court concluded that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the Children's removal would not be remedied, and Mother does not challenge this conclusion or the facts supporting it. The totality of this evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that termination was in the Children's best interests. Mother's argument is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See R.S., 56 N.E.3d at 628.

[28] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Children's father (“Father”) is not participating in this appeal.

2.   We note that the legislature amended INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-4 during the 2024 legislative session, and the amendment became effective March 11, 2024.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges May and Brown concur. May, J., and Brown, J., concur.