S.J.J. v. Madison County Dept. of Public Welfare
| Decision Date | 21 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 48A04-9310-CV-397,48A04-9310-CV-397 |
| Citation | 629 N.E.2d 866 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Termination of Parent-Child Relationship: S.J.J., child, and J.J., child, Starlan Newman, natural mother, and John Doe, natural father, Appellants-Respondents, v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steven C. Smith, Patrick R. Ragains, Anderson, for appellants-respondents.
Thomas L. Hulse, Anderson, for appellee-petitioner.
Starlan Newman appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights with respect to her children, S.J.J., age 13, and J.J., age 10. She argues that the Madison County Department of Public Welfare (DPW) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable probability that the conditions which caused the removal of her children will be remedied.
We affirm.
Newman is the mother of S.J.J., born on March 21, 1980, and J.J., born on March 12, 1984. She is also the mother of four other children, not the subjects of this appeal, who did not live with her at the time of the termination hearing. Newman was pregnant at the time of the hearing.
In January, 1990, S.J.J. and J.J. were determined to be children in need of services (CHINS) and placed in their mother's custody. The disposition decree ordered Newman to obtain counseling, to provide adequate and stable housing for her children, and to see that the children attend school daily unless they were ill.
On March 8, 1990, the court modified its January order because Newman had not obtained stable housing, had made no attempt to obtain counseling, and allowed one of the children to miss several days of school. The children were removed from Newman's home and placed in a foster care situation where they have remained continuously since that time.
On September 1, 1992, the DPW filed a petition to terminate Newman's parental rights.
At the May 19, 1993, termination hearing, Shelly Ross, a DPW Family Service caseworker, testified that she discussed the court order with Newman in December, 1991, when Ross took over the case from Shannon Snyder, another caseworker. Ross advised Newman during their initial meeting, and also during monthly home visits, that she needed to obtain counseling, to find stable housing for herself and her children, to continue her visits with the children and be consistent with those visits, and to avoid exposing the children during their visits to Newman's then-roommate, Fred Geist, who was known to have taken pornographic pictures of his minor daughter. During her testimony, Newman agreed that her caseworkers had urged her to comply with the court's order.
Since the children were placed in foster care, Newman has lived in a number of residences. For a while she lived with her mother and grandmother in Anderson; however, Ross testified that, due to the grandmother's serious illness and the excessive amount of clutter in the house, the residence could not meet the children's needs. Newman also lived in an apartment with Geist who was involved in another CHINS case. Newman testified that she now lives in a three bedroom house which she shares with Dennis Dellinger and that she has an income of $200-400 a month working part-time cleaning houses. Ross testified that when she attempted to investigate Newman's current housing and income in December, 1992, Newman refused to cooperate. Ross contacted Newman several times, but Newman cancelled an appointment, rescheduled another appointment, and did not show up for a Immediately following the March, 1990, order, Newman was allowed visitation with the children in her apartment. However, because she allowed the older child to smoke cigarettes in her home and because she would not exclude Geist from the visits, visitation was changed to weekly supervised visits at the Exchange Club Center. Newman was not consistent with visitation, frequently appearing late or missing entire visits. Finally, in October, 1992, the children requested that the visits be stopped.
meeting another time. Newman testified that she did not keep her caseworkers advised as to where she was living at all times.
On December 11, 1991, Newman was evaluated by Dr. Sue Spencer, a therapist at the Center for Mental Health. In June, 1992, she began therapy with Steve McClung, a therapist at the Center, and saw him five times between June 17 and June 24. McClung testified that Newman had a character disorder, which was characterized by a lack of stability, a lack of commitment, and a lack of ability to set rules or goals for herself or her children. McClung advised Newman that she needed intensive therapy to work on these issues. However, Newman was unable to be consistent with her attendance and did not see McClung again after June 24, 1992. Some time prior to January, 1993, Newman made an appointment to see McClung after she became aware of the pending termination hearing; however, she failed to appear for that appointment. When she called McClung again, he refused to see Newman after January, 1992. McClung also testified that if Newman committed herself to working on her disorder, treatment would probably last two to three years.
At the termination hearing, S.J.J. testified that she preferred to remain in her foster home because it was more stable than living with her mother.
On July 14, 1993, the trial court entered its decree terminating Newman's parental rights. It is from this judgment that she appeals.
Before a parent-child relationship may be terminated, IND.CODE 31-6-5-4 (1992 Supp.) requires the DPW to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that:
(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 (A) the conditions that resulted in the child's removal will not be remedied; or (B) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child;
(3) termination is in the best interest of the child; and
(4) the county department has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.
I.C. 31-6-5-4(c). In considering whether the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment terminating parental rights, this court neither reweighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of the witnesses. M.B. v. Delaware County DPW (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 78, 82 (citations omitted)....
To continue reading
Request your trial