S.A. and A.H., Appellants-Respondents v. R.C. and D.C., Appellees-Petitioners (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] S.A. (Father) and A.H. (Mother) (collectively, Parents) appeal the trial court's order determining that Parents’ consent was not required for the adoption of their minor child N.A. (Child) by Child's legal guardians D.C. and R.C. (collectively, Guardians). Parents raise two issues that we restate as:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it permitted Guardians to present the telephonic testimony of a rebuttal witness over Parents’ objections?

2. Did the trial court clearly err when it determined that Parents were unfit and that adoption was in Child's best interest?

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Child was born in October 2018 while Parents were living in Iowa. Parents were then and still are married, and Child was their first child together. Because Mother was found to have marijuana in her system at the time of Child's birth, the local Department of Child Services (DCS) was involved with the family for a time. In 2019, Father's adoptive mother (Grandmother) moved to Iowa to provide support and assistance to Parents, who lacked stability. After living there about two years, Parents returned to Indiana. In her estimation, Grandmother provided around $40,000 worth of assistance to Parents while they were in Iowa, including for rent, food, and a car that she bought for Parents in 2020. The car was impounded when Father went to jail, and by the time of his release, the fees were so high that Parents never retrieved it. According to Grandmother, during Parents’ time in Iowa, Mother did not work and Father had numerous jobs that he could not keep, and Parents provided “no structure whatsoever” to Child, who behaved “like a wild child.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 112, 113. Around the time that Parents left for Indiana, Grandmother saw their apartment – which they ultimately were evicted from – and the living conditions “made [her] sick.” Id. Pictures that Grandmother had taken of the apartment were later admitted into evidence during the consent hearing.

[4] When they moved to Indiana, Parents first stayed for some weeks with Father's biological mother and then at a hotel in Scott County for about two months. In November 2020, Parents moved into a residence in Scott County but according to Parents, the septic tank or toilet broke and, as a result, there was sewage in the house making it uninhabitable. Parents then again resided in one or more motels with Child. In September 2021, a CHINS case was filed, and Child was removed from Parents’ care stemming from allegations of domestic violence, mental health issues, substance abuse, and lack of housing. Child was initially placed in foster care, but Mother reached out to D.C., a relative, asking if she could help care for Child. On September 17, 2021, Child, almost three years old, was placed with D.C. and her husband R.C. and has remained there ever since.¹ Upon placement with them, Child did not speak well, did not know how to play with toys or other children, was not potty trained, and feared men.

[5] In or around the time that Child was removed from Parents’ care, Father was hospitalized for six days for mental health issues. Also in 2021, Father was arrested stemming from a domestic incident with Mother, which resulted in a conviction for trespass. Father was incarcerated for ninety days or so, during which time Mother moved in with a man named Ben and used methamphetamine with him for a couple of months. Mother then left Ben and returned to living in a hotel. Father and Mother reunited when he was released in December 2021. At that time, Mother was on probation for shoplifting. They lived in various hotels and with Father's father for a month or so in Danville. During 2021 and 2022, Mother also lived out of her car three or four times for short stints.

[6] In March 2022, Guardians began taking Child to mental health counselor Jennifer Roach, which continues to the present. Roach initially observed delays in language, play, and emotional development and diagnosed Child with PTSD due to neglect. Child improved with weekly and then monthly therapy and her “anxiety reduced significantly.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 13.

[7] From March to September 2022, Parents lived in various motels in the Clarksville area. In May 2022, Mother attempted suicide and was hospitalized, and while an inpatient, learned she was six weeks pregnant. In September 2022, Parents moved to Blue Ash, Ohio for a mill job that Father had secured, and they lived in an extended stay hotel until June 2023. Parents’ son was born in November 2022. At some point, they moved to Cincinnati, and beginning in November 2023 lived in an apartment there, with St. Vincent de Paul Society providing rent assistance. They were evicted, however, and moved into a Red Roof Inn. Mother, while continuing to be employed, bounced from one Waffle House to another as Parents moved around, and Father would keep a job for a few weeks before losing it and getting another.

[8] For a time after the guardianship was established, both Parents exercised visitation once a week at Guardians’ home. However, in August 2022, Guardians ceased permitting Father to visit Child following a verbal altercation with D.C. and Father's repeated inattentiveness and lack of interest when visiting with Child. Mother, however, continued to visit Child for several hours every other Sunday at Guardians’ home. Father generally drove Mother to the visits, as she did not and does not have a driver's license. Periodically, there were occasions when Parents did not have working transportation such that Mother missed visits.

[9] In January 2023, Guardians filed a petition to adopt Child. Parents objected, and the trial court held a hearing on the matter of Parents’ consent over the course of three days in February, March, and August 2024.

[10] Guardians called Mother to testify at the first hearing date. She was working at Waffle House and testified that she had been employed with that company since 2014 and was able to move to different locations over the years as needed; Father was working at an IHOP restaurant. Mother agreed that Parents had been evicted several times since Child's removal from their care but testified that they were going to be moving into a two-bedroom residence in Middletown, Ohio in two weeks. Mother testified that she had begun seeing a therapist, every other week, five or six months prior to the hearing and was taking medication for her mental health but had not participated in any substance abuse classes other than during her week-long stay in a mental health center in 2022. Mother admitted to using marijuana most of her life and recently, in Ohio where it is legal, sometimes at work, but never in either of her children's presence. Mother characterized her relationship with Father as great and believed they were now able to co-parent well, attributing some of that to having worked through issues with her therapist. Mother agreed that Parents needed more overall stability before taking Child fully into their custody, suggesting that Child be integrated back into Parents’ lives slowly and in a healthy manner for Child's mental health and well-being.

[11] Grandmother testified that Parents “have no concept of money,” they “won't admit that they have mental health issues,” and their relationship with one another is “toxic.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 111, 116, 121. Grandmother testified that Parents often made excuses for situations and opined, “If [Father's] lips are moving, he's lying.” Id. at 112. Grandmother believed that Child had progressed and thrived in Guardians’ care. She testified that Parents were not fit to be parents when the guardianship was entered in January 2022 and, in her opinion, nothing had really changed.

[12] Mental health counselor Roach testified that Child needed a safe, stable, and supportive home and that a lack of permanency would disrupt Child's progress. Roach recalled that Parents called her office in mid-2022 and she informed them at that time that they could stay in contact with her, but she had no record of calls or letters from Parents since then.

[13] R.C.’s daughter-in-law (DIL), who was around thirty years old, a CASA, and currently working on a master's degree in social work, also testified at the February hearing. She was living at the Guardians’ residence when Child arrived, and for eight or so months thereafter, and testified to her observations that Child initially exhibited developmental delays, including not being potty trained, eating very little and only with her hands, not speaking well, and experiencing night terrors about once a week. DIL saw improvement in all these areas and testified that she believed it was in Child's best interest to remain with Guardians.

[14] During the second day of the consent hearing, in March 2024, D.C., who had been employed as a CASA for four years, testified that Child had made noticeable improvement since living at her home and starting therapy. Child was currently in pre-kindergarten and, although still experiencing issues with paying attention and retaining information, was only “a little behind” and doing well socially and involved in activities. Id. at 134. D.C. addressed her decision to cease Father's visits with Child in August 2022, explaining that, for a time leading up to that date, Father was uninvolved and inattentive to Child while exercising visits and would “bad mouth” Grandmother to Child even though D.C. had told him to stop doing so. Id. at 161. Child also experienced night terrors after visits with him. Father then canceled a visit but told Mother that D.C. had done so, and when D.C. confronted Father on the phone about it, he yelled and cursed at her, after which D.C. stopped Father's visits. D.C. noted that Mother's visits continued and were “pretty consistent” over the years. Id. at 166.

[15] D.C. described that she and Mother communicated almost daily until the petition for adoption was filed and that, over the years, she had tried to be a mother figure for Mother, who D.C. described as “a hard worker.” Id. at 181. Text communications between D.C. and Mother occurring over the years were admitted into evidence at trial and, among other things, referenced instances of domestic violence, Parents’ struggles with mental health, and instability in housing. D.C. expressed that Mother “knows the problem but continues to stay in it instead of making positive changes.” Id. at 184. D.C. testified that Parents had not rectified DCS's original concerns of lack of stable housing and employment and had not taken any classes for domestic violence or drug use. In her view, Parents were only willing to “do to the bare minimum” and were “not in it for the long haul.” Id. at 207. D.C. believed Parents’ unstable lifestyle had continued since Child's removal and that adoption was in Child's best interests.

[16] Guardians thereafter rested their case-in-chief and Parents began theirs, consisting of Father's testimony. Father was now working at Waffle House, and, about two weeks prior to the hearing, Parents had moved into the Middletown apartment, for which they had signed a one-year lease. He stated that his mental health issues had been diagnosed as situational and he was not prescribed any medication or in therapy, but that Mother was going to therapy and was taking mood stabilizer Seroquel. He described that their relationship had “flowered and blossomed” and that there had been no domestic violence issues in two years. Transcript Vol. 3 at 4. As to drug use, he stated that he does not use anything other than marijuana, legal in Ohio. As to his visits with Child being terminated in August 2022, Father admitted that D.C. did so because he had upset her but also noted that D.C. had been antagonizing Mother and telling her to leave Father, as had DCS. He believed D.C. and Grandmother were working together against him.

[17] Father maintained that the pictures of Parents’ Iowa apartment that had been admitted during Grandmother's testimony did not accurately reflect the state of the apartment as Parents had left it. He maintained that a neighbor had broken in, destroyed it, and left it in that condition. Father acknowledged that eviction proceedings had commenced against Parents before they moved out.

[18] Father's testimony continued into the third day of the consent hearing, in August 2024. Father was now working at McDonalds, and Parents were living in an extended stay hotel. Father testified that his driver's license currently was “on hold” in Ohio for failure to pay a speeding ticket, that he had a pending driving while suspended charge in Indiana, and that he did not appear for a court hearing because his car was in the shop, resulting in a bench warrant being issued. Transcript Vol. 3 at 62, 65.

[19] Father explained that Parents were no longer in their Middletown apartment because their landlord “broke into” their apartment while they were on a visit to Indiana. Id. at 35. Father initially indicated they had voluntarily moved out but thereafter acknowledged that the landlord, Dan Tracy, had filed eviction proceedings. Father testified that the apartment was “in outstanding condition” when they moved out. Id. at 36. Father agreed that, prior to the Middletown apartment, they had been evicted from a different apartment with a different landlord in 2024.

[20] Parents rested their case following Father's testimony. Counsel for Guardians, Justin Froedge, then stated that Guardians desired to call Tracy as a rebuttal witness.² Froedge advised the trial court that he had just learned earlier in the week about Tracy, had received some “reports” the day prior to the hearing, and had texted Tracy about 9:00 p.m. that night asking if he could be available by phone for the hearing. Id. at 68-69. Froedge also contacted Parents’ counsel, Johnathon Holley, the morning of the hearing to notify him about the possibility of calling Tracy to testify. Froedge asked the court to allow Tracy, located in Ohio, to testify by phone. Holley confirmed that he had been contacted by Froedge but objected on the bases of having insufficient notice and not consenting to telephonic testimony. The trial court granted Guardians’ request to allow Tracy's telephonic rebuttal testimony.

[21] Tracy testified that he leased the Middletown property to Parents in March 2024 and that Parents were “in violation of the lease from the get go.” Id. at 77. Tracy stated that they initially paid a $2000 security deposit, $200 of which Tracy returned to Parents to get utilities turned on, but that they never otherwise paid rent. Tracy testified that he tried to work with Parents on payment but “it was a constant put off.” Id. at 78. At some point before August, he commenced eviction proceedings against them and obtained a $7500 judgment. Tracy described that Parents left the apartment in “terrible” condition, full of furniture and garbage and infested with fleas. Id. at 79. He stated that trash was piled up in the backyard. He stated that Parents called law enforcement on him three times, accusing Tracy of burglarizing their apartment for which he was never charged.

[22] Parents thereafter called Mother to testify in rebuttal. She testified that the apartment was not in pristine condition when they moved in, as Tracy had indicated, and that contrary to his testimony, they paid rent and were only one month behind, and the apartment was “spotless” when they left. Id. at 86.

[23] On November 6, 2024, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that Parents’ consent to the adoption was not required because Parents were unfit and dispensing with their consent was in Child's best interests. Following a home study, the trial court issued a decree of adoption in March 2025. Parents now appeal the trial court's judgment that Parents’ consent was not required. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

Discussion & Decision

1. Rebuttal Testimony

[24] Parents assert that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted Guardians to present Tracy as a rebuttal witness and when it allowed him to testify telephonically. “Rebuttal evidence is that which tends to explain, contradict, or disprove an adversary's evidence.” Reed v. Bethel, 2 N.E.3d 98, 111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The scope of rebuttal and the order of evidence are matters left to the discretion of the trial court. Id.; see also Ind. Trial Rule 43(D) (stating that the party on whom rests the burden of the issues first produces evidence after which the adverse party produces evidence “which may then be rebutted”). Specifically, we have recognized that, it is within the court's discretion “to permit a party to present additional evidence or testimony once the party has rested, once both parties have rested, or after the close of all of the evidence.” Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626-27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. When a trial court exercises its discretion in ruling on a party's motion to reopen its case-in-chief, there is no requirement that the court specifically articulate the reasons for its ruling. Id. at 627. We review the trial court's admission of rebuttal evidence for an abuse of discretion. Reed, 2 N.E.3d at 111 (citing Mogen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2003)).

[25] We first address Parents’ argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Tracy to testify by telephone. Ind. Administrative Rule 14(C) provides that a court “must conduct all testimonial proceedings in person except that a court may conduct the proceedings remotely for all or some of the case participants for good cause shown or by agreement of the parties.” A finding of good cause requires “particularized and specific factual support.” B.N. v. Health and Hosp. Corp., 199 N.E.3d 360, 364 (Ind. 2022). That is, a trial court must offer more than a one-size-fits-all boilerplate pronouncement. Id. “Good cause requires something specific to the moment, the case, the court, the parties, the subject matter, or other relevant considerations.” Id. at 364-65. We review a trial court's good-cause determination for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 363. Our Supreme Court has emphasized that trial courts retain significant discretion to conduct remote proceedings. Id. at 364.

[26] Parents contend that, here, the trial court failed to provide “specific good cause” to permit Tracy to testify telephonically. Appellant's Brief at 22. We disagree. The trial court specifically observed that Tracy's testimony was rebuttal evidence and that Froedge had just recently learned about Tracy and advised opposing counsel the morning of the hearing about the possibility of calling him as a rebuttal witness. The court also noted that Tracy was in Ohio and that his testimony was expected to be short and not document-intensive. While the trial court did not expressly state that it was finding good cause, it noted sufficient particularized facts for us to infer that the court determined that good cause existed to allow testimony by phone. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.

[27] We next turn to Parents’ contention that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Tracy's rebuttal testimony because he was not disclosed to Parents until the morning of the third day of hearings such that Parents had insufficient time to prepare or investigate and were “surprised and prejudiced” by the testimony. Appellant's Brief at 20-21. This no-fair argument does not establish error. First, Tracy's testimony explained, contradicted, and/or was intended to disprove Father's testimony about Parents’ tenancy at the Middletown apartment. Indeed, as observed by Guardians, Father's testimony “opened the door” about the circumstances surrounding Parents’ time at the apartment. Appellee's Brief at 19. Tracy's testimony was proper rebuttal evidence. See Sharkey v. State, 542 N.E.2d 556, 558 (Ind. 1989) (witness's testimony that contradicted defendant's testimony about never having seen the victim before was “proper rebuttal evidence” and properly permitted by trial court).

[28] As to Parents’ claimed lack of notice, it is undisputed that Froedge contacted Holley on the morning of the hearing to advise him of the possibility of calling Tracy to testify that day.³ And at the point that Guardians requested permission to present Tracy's rebuttal testimony, Parents did not ask for a recess or move for a continuance. On the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to permit Tracy's rebuttal testimony.

2. Parents’ Consent

[29] Parents challenge the trial court's determination that their consent to the adoption was not required. Our standard of review is well established:

When reviewing the trial court's ruling in an adoption proceeding, we will not disturb that ruling unless the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial judge reached an opposite conclusion. We do not reweigh the evidence on appeal, but instead we examine the evidence most favorable to the trial court's decision together with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain the decision. Moreover, we generally give considerable deference to the trial court's decision in family law matters, as we recognize that the trial judge is in the best position to judge the facts, determine witness credibility, get a feel for the family dynamics, and get a sense of the parents and their relationship with their children.

In re Adoption of M.L., 973 N.E.2d 1216, 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Where, as here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. We determine (1) whether the evidence supports the findings of fact and (2) whether the findings support the judgment. E.W. v. J.W., 20 N.E.3d 889, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The trial court's findings or judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the record lacks evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support it. Id.

Findings of Fact

[30] Parents assert that the evidence does not support three findings. First, Parents challenge Finding 34, which states in part that Mother's only efforts toward addressing substance abuse “were a couple of classes” during her mental health hospitalization. Appellant's Appendix at 45. Parents argue that Mother had more than just “a couple of classes” as the evidence was that she now attends biweekly mental health therapy and takes medication. As observed by Guardians, however, mental health medication and therapy sessions are not the equivalent of substance abuse classes, and we find that the evidence supports Finding 34.

[31] Parents also challenge Finding 40, stating that Mother regularly visited with child while in Guardians’ care but that “her recent visits [ ] have been sporadic and she missed several visits in a row in 2024.” Id. at 46. Parents argue there “is no support in the record that Mother's recent visits [were] sporadic” as missing two or three visits is not sporadic. Appellant's Brief at 13-14. Testimony was presented – and the trial court found – that Mother “regularly” visited with Child, usually every other Sunday, but that there were occasions, including in the weeks prior to the August 2024 hearing, that Mother missed visits due to transportation issues, which according to D.C. caused Mother to not visit for a period of fifty-four days. The court was entitled to view this as sporadic, and the evidence thus supports Finding 40.

[32] Lastly, Parents challenge Finding 35, stating, in part, that “Mother has been unemployed for significant periods.” Appellant's Appendix at 45 (emphasis added). We agree with Parents that the record does not support the finding that Mother was unemployed for significant periods; rather, the evidence was that Mother worked for Waffle House since 2014 and, besides while in Iowa and other limited periods, she maintained employment with that employer. Given the record, it is possible that the trial court may have inadvertently said “Mother” when it intended to say “Father” in that instance. Regardless, however, the court entered fifty-one other unchallenged findings and eleven conclusions, and based on the record and the court's full order, we find that the probable impact of one erroneous finding on the outcome of this case was minimal.

Conclusions Dispensing with Parental Consent

[33] Pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(11), consent to adoption is not required from a parent if:

(A) a petitioner for adoption proves by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit to be a parent; and

(B) the best interests of the child sought to be adopted would be served if the court dispensed with the parent's consent.

As the petitioners, Guardians had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Parents’ consent to the adoption was not required. J.H. v. S.S., 93 N.E.3d 1137, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Parents argue that, although they “are not perfect” parents, Guardians failed to prove they are unfit. Appellant's Brief at 16.

[34] Although I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(11), does not define “unfit,” our courts have recognized that termination cases provide useful guidance as to what makes a parent “unfit,” as the termination statutes and adoption statutes strike a similar balance between the parents’ rights and the child's best interests. J.H., 93 N.E.3d at 1141; M.L., 973 N.E.2d at 1223. In these cases, we have considered factors such as a parent's instability in housing and employment, substance abuse, mental health and treatment, lack of insight, and ability to care for a child's special needs. M.L., 973 N.E.2d at 1223.

[35] Each of these factors is present in this case. Parents have lived in over a dozen residences since Child's removal in 2021, they have been evicted multiple times, including twice in 2024, migrated from one motel to another, and Mother chose to stay in her car on several occasions for days at a time to avoid the conditions where she and Father were living. From removal to the final date of the hearing, Father continued to keep a job for only a short time before moving to another. Mother does not have a driver's license, and Father's was suspended or limited in Ohio. Parents still struggle with unreliable transportation, such that Mother missed several Sunday visits between the last two hearing dates. Mother used methamphetamine for some months in 2021 but never received substance abuse treatment other than a couple of classes when hospitalized following the suicide attempt.

[36] Both parents have a history of mental health issues, and each has been hospitalized once since Child's removal in 2021. Mother had only begun therapy and medication shortly before the final August 2024 hearing date, and Father maintained he did not need therapy or medication. There was evidence of domestic abuse earlier in the proceedings, and while Parents each testified that their relationship was now good, they never participated in domestic abuse counseling.

[37] When Child first came to live with Guardians, she was exhibiting developmental delays. After starting and continuing therapy with Roach, Child has improved but Parents have not stayed in contact with Roach. In sum, the evidence favorable to the judgment reflects a lack of progress in most if not all areas that precipitated Child's initial removal, and, overall, Parents’ behaviors and testimony reflect a lack of insight and/or an inability or unwillingness to change. The trial court did not err when it concluded that Parents were unfit.

[38] We turn now Parents’ claim that adoption is not in Child's best interests. Appellant's Brief at 17. As Parents point out, even if a court determines that a natural parent's consent is not required for an adoption, the court must still determine whether adoption is in the child's best interests. In re Adoption of M.S., 10 N.E.3d 1272, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). As in termination cases, courts in adoption cases consider the totality of the circumstances to determine best interests of a child. Id. It is undisputed that Guardians have provided Child with a safe, stable, supportive environment since her placement with them in September 2021, and Child has improved developmentally and socially in their care. Child needs and is continuing to receive therapy from Roach, who testified that a lack of stability – which Parents still exhibited in their lifestyle by the third and final day of the consent hearing – would negatively impact Child's progress. The trial court did not err in concluding that adoption is in Child's best interests.

[39] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Around early 2022, Guardians petitioned for legal guardianship, and Parents consented. The guardianship was granted on January 10, 2022.

2.   Froedge also called D.C. as a rebuttal witness but Parents do not challenge the trial court's decision to allow her testimony.

3.   Parents suggest that, given that Froedge contacted Holley on the morning before the hearing, Guardians evidently “knew that they intended to call [Tracy]” prior to hearing Father's testimony that day, and, therefore, his testimony was not truly in rebuttal and should have been excluded. Reply Brief at 5. We are unmoved by that argument, as the morning courtesy call from Froedge to Holley does not establish that Guardians knew and planned all along to call Tracy to testify.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Pyle and DeBoer concur. Pyle, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.