IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.M. and R.M. (Minor Children) and J.M. (Mother) (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.M. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother has two children, T.M. (born in 2012) and R.M. (born in 2016). The fathers of the children are deceased. In July 2022, the Department of Child Services (DCS) removed the children from Mother and petitioned to have them adjudicated children in need of services (CHINS) because of Mother's drug use and failure to appropriately care for the children. After the initial hearing, the trial court issued a provisional order requiring Mother to, among other things, cooperate with DCS, complete and follow the recommendations of Family Recovery Court, submit to a diagnostic assessment, obtain a drug and alcohol assessment and enroll in drug and alcohol counseling, abstain from drugs and alcohol, submit to random drug testing, and attend visits with the children.

[3] Mother largely failed to comply with the provisional order, and a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petition was held in December 2022. Mother failed to attend but was represented by counsel. The trial court found the children to be CHINS, noting that Mother had “for all intents and purposes” abandoned the children. Ex. p. 53. A dispositional hearing was held two weeks later, and Mother again failed to appear. The court issued a dispositional order that included most of the same requirements as the provisional order.

[4] Mother, by her own admission, failed almost entirely to comply with the dispositional order. She didn't cooperate with DCS, didn't participate in most services, missed multiple court hearings, missed most visits with the children, and repeatedly failed to submit to drug tests. She last saw the children in April 2023 and was charged with felony drug offenses in May and felony theft in June.¹

[5] In October 2023, DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights. An initial hearing was set for November 21. Service on Mother was unsuccessful, and she didn't appear for the hearing. However, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent her, and the termination hearing was scheduled for April 16. The next week, DCS filed an Affidavit of Diligent Inquiry and a Praecipe for Summons by Publication. The court authorized service by publication, and on December 19, December 26, and January 2, The Journal Gazette published the summons and notice of the April 16 hearing date. Notice of the hearing was also mailed to Mother's last-known address.

[6] Mother failed to appear at the hearing on April 16. Her attorney was present and didn't challenge the sufficiency of service or notice, but the court rescheduled the hearing for April 29. Written notice was again sent to Mother at her last-known address, but she again failed to appear. Her attorney didn't raise any issue with notice, and the court proceeded with the hearing. The court then issued an order terminating Mother's parental rights.

[7] Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Mother makes two cursory arguments, both without merit. She first asserts, “Referrals for services were put in place to assist [Mother] with her significant underlying issues, but [Mother] argues that there was insufficient time for any significant benefit to manifest, due to her unavailability.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. She doesn't cite any authority on the topic, explain what she means by “unavailability,” or specify how much more time she should have been given (the CHINS case was open for more than fourteen months before DCS petitioned for termination). Her second argument is that during the termination hearing DCS should have presented evidence of the efforts it made to locate her before it sought permission to serve her by publication. But DCS provided an Affidavit of Diligent Inquiry when it sought that permission, see Appellee's App. Vol. II pp. 4, 8, 14-15, and Mother cites no authority requiring DCS to present that evidence again at the termination hearing. Also, the trial court specifically addressed the adequacy of service and notice, and Mother's attorney didn't raise any issue. Tr. pp. 5-8. Mother hasn't shown any error, so we affirm the trial court's termination order.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother pled guilty in the drug case in August 2024. The theft case is scheduled for trial in February 2025.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.