In re AI
Decision Date | 24 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 82A01-0404-JV-184.,82A01-0404-JV-184. |
Citation | 825 N.E.2d 798 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.I., Jennifer Inkenhaus, Mother and Alan Inkenhaus, Father, Appellants-Respondents, v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children, Appellee-Petitioner. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Matthew Jon McGovern, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellant, Jennifer Inkenhaus.
Jeffery L. Lantz, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellant, Alan Inkenhaus.
Katharine Vanost Jones, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Jennifer and Alan Inkenhaus separately appeal the termination of their parental rights as to their daughter, A.I. We affirm.
The parties raise numerous issues in their briefs, which we consolidate and restate as:
On April 3, 2002, the Vanderburgh County Office of Family and Children ("OFC") received a referral alleging A.I. was in danger of being molested by Alan based on a claim by another one of his daughters who did not live with the parties. The case was assigned to Susan Wilke in the OFC, who identified the problems in the household as substance abuse, domestic violence, and basic parenting and safety issues. Wilke put into place a plan pursuant to which Alan was to leave the home and A.I. would remain with Jennifer pending an investigation.
On April 16, 2002, Wilke went to the home. Alan was present, and Jennifer had a large bruise on her head. Wilke referred her to the local battered women's shelter and to a domestic abuse program, but Jennifer did not follow through on the advice.
Thereafter, Wilke requested detention for A.I. The trial court found probable cause and authorized A.I. to be placed in foster care on April 18, 2002, pending Alan's departure from the premises. The trial court set the matter for an initial hearing on April 24, 2002. On that day, the parents appeared with counsel and were advised of their rights. They denied the allegations in the petition, and the trial court set a trial date. The trial court also issued a no contact order in favor of Jennifer and A.I. against Alan. He was ordered to move from the premises within a month, and A.I. was returned to Jennifer's care as of that date.
A few days later, Wilke talked to Jennifer, who admitted that Alan had been abusing her. Alan continued to have contact with Jennifer and A.I. in violation of the no-contact order.
In June 2002, Jennifer and A.I. were evicted from the residence. Alan found them staying with friends and abused Jennifer. As a result, he was arrested. He later pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor.
The OFC filed an information for contempt ("IC") alleging a violation of the no contact order. After the parties submitted the matter on the record, the trial court found A.I. to be a child in need of services ("CHINS") and reaffirmed the no-contact order, which specified that Alan was to have no contact with Jennifer or A.I. Within an hour, Alan phoned Jennifer where she was staying and told her he was coming over.
As of July 11, 2002, Jennifer was homeless and had not made any progress on the issues identified by the OFC. The next day, the OFC filed a motion for change of placement and requested detention of A.I. The trial court granted temporary placement and set a hearing on July 17, 2002. By agreement, the matter was reset for August 2, 2002, and was later continued to August 7, 2002. At that time, the no contact order was amended to permit contact between Alan and Jennifer.
A month later, the trial court conducted the dispositional hearing. The trial court found that A.I. was a CHINS and that placement out of the home was in her best interests. Both parents agreed to a parental participation plan ("PPP") with which the trial court ordered them to comply. Jennifer's PPP required her to:
Alan's App. pp. 26-27. Alan's plan provided that he:
Alan's App. pp. 29-30. The trial court ordered both parents to pay weekly support for A.I. beginning September 27, 2002.
On September 6, 2002, the trial court conducted a hearing on the IC. Alan admitted that he was in contempt.
After several continuances, the trial court eventually conducted a review and permanency hearing on April 9, 2003. The review memorandum contains the OFC's concerns that both parents were abusing prescription medications; both refused to sign releases; no support had been paid; domestic conflict continued; and Jennifer reported she could not protect A.I. from Alan. The trial court found that A.I. remained in need of services and continued the dispositional decree.
Thereafter, the OFC filed an IC against Jennifer alleging that she had failed to cooperate with the therapist, OFC, and other service providers; obtain employment and create a safe environment for A.I.; and failed to attend Caretakers of Sexually Abused Children. An IC against Alan was also filed, alleging a failure to cooperate with the in-home therapist...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re L.B.
...the juvenile court's determination that termination of Father's parental rights is in the children's best interests. See In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (concluding that testimony of the court appointed special advocate and family case manager, coupled with evidence that the co......
-
B.W. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re L.D.)
...a parent's rights should be terminated, “but also those bases resulting in the continued placement outside the home.” In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. A court may properly consider evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, histor......
-
M.P. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re H.P.)
...not only the initial basis for the child's removal but also the bases for continued placement outside the home. In re A.I. , 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Moreover, "the trial court should judge a parent's fitness to care for [her] children at the time of the term......
-
G.W.L. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re G.W.L.)
...outside Father's care, and, second, whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will be remedied. In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied ; In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 882. When assessing whether a reasonable probability exists that the condition......