R.M. v. Tippecanoe County Dept. of Public Welfare

• Decision Date: 09 December 1991
• Docket Number: No. 79A02-9010-CV-629,79A02-9010-CV-629
• Citation: 582 N.E.2d 417
• Parties: 2 NDLR P 182 In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.M., minor child, and Teresa L. Morris, Appellant-Natural Mother, v. TIPPECANOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee-Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 417

582 N.E.2d 417

2 NDLR P 182

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child

Relationship of R.M., minor child, and Teresa L. Morris, Appellant-Natural Mother, v. TIPPECANOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee-Petitioner.

No. 79A02-9010-CV-629.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Second District.

Dec. 9, 1991.

John M. Sorensen, Lafayette, for appellant-natural mother.

Edward J. Nemeth, Gambs, Mucker, Bauman & Seeger, Lafayette, for appellee-petitioner.

SHIELDS, Judge.

Teresa L. Morris appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights with respect to her second child R.M.

We affirm.

ISSUE

Whether sufficient evidence exists from which the trier of fact could determine, by clear and convincing evidence, a reasonable probability that the conditions justifying termination of the natural parent-child relationship will not be remedied.

FACTS

Appellant Teresa L. Morris (Morris) is the mother of three children: G.M., the oldest, who was found to be a child in need of services (CHINS) and placed in the temporary custody of the Tippecanoe County Department of Welfare (Department) immediately following his birth; R.M., the middle child, also a CHINS placed in the temporary custody of the Department and the subject of this action; and C.M., who died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome approximately four months after birth. All three children were born out-of-wedlock and paternity has not been established.

R.M. has not been in Morris' home except for her monitored visits with Morris which began when she was approximately three years old. The trial court terminated the parent-child relationship between Morris and R.M. on July 2, 1990.

Morris' mental and emotional instability, originally diagnosed as "atypical psychosis and adjustment disorder with depressed mood," Record at 187, contributed to her inability to adequately attend to the needs of R.M. She was hospitalized in a Virginia mental health facility in 1985 (which she testified was a result of drug use, specifically alcohol and "acid"). Following the birth of G.M., Morris' mental disorders caused her to be hospitalized at the Wabash Valley Mental Health Hospital (Wabash) and the Logansport State Hospital. After R.M.'s birth, Morris returned to Wabash in late 1987 and early 1988. Her most recent hospitalization occurred in May of 1989 after C.M.'s death. She was subsequently rediagnosed as a schizophrenic, disorganized type. Tests also indicated Morris has an I.Q. of 75 which is considered borderline retardation.

The Department offered several services during the course of these proceedings to assist Morris in her efforts to stabilize her mental and emotional state and meet her children's needs. These services included intensive counseling, Day Treatment (partial hospitalization), supervised visits with her children, and a program designed to teach independent living skills. Morris' participation tended to mirror the episodic nature of her mental disorder. She would refuse to attend some of the mandatory sessions either because of disinterest or her belief that her parenting skills were adequate enough to excuse her absence, despite objections by her caseworkers to the contrary. Morris also resisted and later voluntarily discontinued the anti-psychotic medicine prescribed to counteract some of the negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia and generally control her psychosis.

A caseworker who accompanied and monitored R.M.'s visits with Morris testified to R.M.'s disturbing reactions when she was with Morris. R.M. had crying and screaming fits on the way to Morris' house, became withdrawn and unresponsive during the visit, and was upset when the caseworker Due to R.M.'s adverse reactions toward Morris, the Department hired a clinical psychologist to evaluate the parent-child bonding between R.M. and her mother. The psychologist found R.M. to be bright and cheerful with an excellent attention span and engaged in advanced goal-directed behavior for a child her age. However, when R.M. came in contact with Morris, she was detached, listless, and virtually inactive. Because R.M.'s behavior was specific to her contact with Morris, it was the psychologist's professional opinion that continued contact would be severely damaging unless and until Morris was better able to recognize and respond to her child's needs.

left her alone with Morris. The caseworker also observed Morris' lack of appropriate concern for R.M.'s safety, her inability to interpret R.M.'s wants and desires, and her apparent disregard for R.M.'s nutritional needs.

The trial court found Morris incapable of understanding and appreciating the needs of R.M., unable to control her psychosis during times of stress, and unwilling to unconditionally participate in the programs established for her by the Department to deal with her situation. Accordingly, the trial court granted the Department's petition to terminate her parental rights and keep R.M. in the Department's custody pending adoption.

Morris appeals, arguing her association with C.M. prior to C.M.'s death was evidence of her progress and the reasonable probability that with proper guidance, she could remedy the conditions that resulted in R.M.'s removal from the home.

DISCUSSION

The Department must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the following elements have been met to justify the termination of a parent-child relationship:

(1) The child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) months under a dispositional decree;

(2) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal will not be remedied;

(3) Termination is in the best interests of the child; and

(4) The county department has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.

IC 31-6-5-4(c) (1988) ¹; J.K.C. v. Fountain County Department of Public Welfare (1984), Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 88, 91. On review of the trial court's determination, this court will neither reweigh that evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. M.B. v. Delaware County Department of Public Welfare (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 78, 82. Rather, we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id.

To determine whether a reasonable probability exists that the conditions justifying the child's removal from the home will not be remedied, the trial court should determine the parent's ability to meet the needs of the child as of the time of the termination hearing, taking into account any evidence of changed conditions. J.K.C., 470 N.E.2d at 92. Due to the permanency of termination, the trial court must also consider the parent's habitual patterns of conduct as a means of determining the probability of future detrimental behavior. Id.

In M.B. v. Delaware County Department of Public Welfare (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 78, a mother, also faced with termination of her parental rights, lost her battle with the State when this court affirmed the trial court's judgment. This court held the evidence she had resisted the Department's intervention and services, denied the need for her to attend parent/nurturing classes and a parental support group, and failed to cooperate with or benefit from the services offered to her to the extent necessary to overcome her inadequate parenting skills, in conjunction with the evidence a clinical psychologist diagnosed the parent as having a moderate to severe borderline personality disorder which could interfere with treatment because people similarly afflicted are unwilling to change, met the...