### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT S Mark Small Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke Abigail R. Recker Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent

- Child Relationship of: A.D. and C.D. (Minor Children)
and Ch.D. (Mother) and Cl.D. (Father), Appellant s -

Responde nt s

,

v. December 7, 2015 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 Appeal from the Vigo Circuit Court The Honorable David R. Bolk, Judge The Honorable Daniel W. Kelly , Magistrate Trial Co urt Cause No s
. 84D09

- 1407

- JT

- 713 and

- 714

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 1 of 7

### Indiana Department of Child Services , Appellee

- Petitioner

Crone , Judge
. 

### Case Summary

[1] Ch.D. (“Mother”) and Cl.D. (“Father”) (collectively “the Parents”) appeal the trial court’s involuntary termination of their parental rights to th eir mino r children, A.D. and C.D. (collectively “the C h ildren”). In the midst of the termination evidentiary proceedings, the Parents informed the trial court that they wished to stop the proceedings and concede to the termination of their respective parental rights. Although the Parents indicated that they would prefer a voluntary termination of their rights, when the trial court indicated that the termination would remain involuntary as alleged in the petition to terminate, the Parents assured the court that they still wanted their parental rights termina te d

. The Parents’ sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discreti on when it granted the involuntar y, rather than voluntary, termination of their parental rights . Finding no abuse of discretion or reversible

error , we affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 2 of 7

### Facts an d Procedural History

[2] On March 24, 2013, the trial court authorized the emergency removal of seven year - old A.D. and five

- year - old C.D. from the Parent s ’ care after Father made allegations that Mother was sexually abusing A.D. Following an investigation,

n eglect and sexual abuse allegations against both Mother and Father regarding the C hildren were substantiated. On May 26, 2013, the Vigo County Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed its petit ion alleging that the Children were Children in Need of Services (“CHINS” ). The trial court subsequently held a factfinding hearing and adjudicated the children as CHINS upon stipulation by the Parents. The reafter, the court held a dispositional hearing and entered its decree requiring the Parents to particip ate in services.

[3] After Parents made no progress in remedying the conditions that resulted in the Children ’ s removal from the home, DCS filed its petition to involuntarily terminate the Parents’ parental rights . A termination hearing was scheduled and bega n on December 15, 2014. DCS pres ented ten witnesses and fourteen exhibits . At the conclusion of the day, the trial court continued the remainder of the hearing to January 29, 2015. The DCS still had the testimony of one witness to present , and the Paren ts had not yet presented their case.

[4] On January 27, 2015, t wo da ys prior to the continued termination hearing, the trial court held a CHINS permanency hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the
Parents ’ counsel informed the trial court that “they would just like their [parental] rights terminated today” instead of coming back to court to finish the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 3 of 7termination hearing. Jan. Tr. at 4. 1 C ounsel stated, “I think that they would prefer it to be voluntary but it [ ’ ] s my understanding that because how far in to the Fact Finding Trial we were ... I explained to them that I thought it was going to be too late but that I would ask.” Id

. Because DCS filed the original petition for involuntary termination, the trial court asked DCS its position on the issue. DCS i ndicated, “We are not inclined to grant the Voluntary.” Id . at 5. In light of this position, the trial court addressed the Parents and asked them if they still wanted to “go ahead and have it terminated.” Id . Mother responded, “We want it done today, please.” Id

. Likewise, F ather stated, “So we want it over with.” Id

. The trial court granted the Parents ’ request to cancel further proceedings and concluded the hearing. On March 13, 2015, the trial court entered detailed findings of fact, conclusions thereon , and an order terminating the Parents’ parental rights. 2 This appeal ensued.


### Discussion and Decision

[5] “The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children.” In re
I.A. , 934 N.E.2d 1 1 27, 1132 (Ind. 2010). However , parental rights are “not absolute and must be sub ordinated to the child’s interests when determining the

1 Although the Parents had separate public defenders who were present at the permanency hearing, Father’s counsel spoke on behalf of both Parents.

2 We do not specifically mention the trial court’s detailed f indings and conclusions here because the Parents do not challenge those findings and conclusions, or the underlying evidentiary support, o n appeal. However, we must acknowledge that the trial court’s findings indicate that these children were subjected to sexual abuse and neglect of the most horrendous nature at the hands of the Parents.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 4 of 7proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights.” Id . (citation omitted). Accordingly , parental rights may be terminated when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. Id

. “Because the ultimate purpose of the law is to protect the child, the parent

- child relationship will give way when it is no longer in the child’s interest to maintain this relationship. ” In re M.N. , 27 N.E.3 d 1116, 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted) , trans. denied

.

[6] The Parents concede that their parental rig hts should have been terminated; they simply challenge whether the termination should have been considered involuntary or voluntary. We begin by noting that the volun tary termination of parental rights and the involuntary termination of parental rights are different dispositions governed by separate statutory provisions. See Ind. Code § 31

- 35

- 1

- 4 (voluntary termination); Ind. Code § 31

- 35

- 2

- 4 (involuntary termination)

. Here, DCS petitioned for the involuntary termination of the Parents’ parental rights pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4 and the termination evidentiary hearing began and proceeded on that basis. Nevertheless , the Parents baldly assert that they had “a concomitant right to seek voluntary termination of their parental rights” in the midst of the termination proceeding

. Appellant s ’ Br. at 6.

[7] W e note that the Parents cite no authority, and we are unaware of any , to support their assertion of this concomitant right. Moreover, the Parents fail t o provide cogent argument or reasoning to support their contention t hat the trial

court was obligated to convert the involuntary termination proceeding that was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 5 of 7already un derway into a v oluntary termination proceeding merely because they preferred it to be so . Accordingly, the Parents have waived our review of their argument. See A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. , 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to support arguments with cogent reasoning results in waiver on appeal) , trans. denied ; see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring each contention be supported by cogent reasoning and citations).

[8] Waiver notwithstanding, we find no abuse of discr etion or reversible error. Our review of the record reveals that more than a month afte r DCS presented ample substantive evidence in support of its petition to involuntarily terminate the Parents’ parental rights, the Parents decided that, rather than pre sent ing their respective cases in opposition, they would instead effectively admit to the allegations in the petitio n in order to get the termination “ over with ” and to get “on with [their] business.” Jan. Tr. at 5. At no time did the Parents file or
req uest leave to file a petition for voluntary termination, nor did they condition the ir concession to the termination of parental rights on DCS amending its original petition. Indeed, d espite their voiced preference that the termination be considered voluntary, the Parents assured the trial court that they wished to terminate even after DCS indicate d that it would not amend the involuntary petition. It was only after receiving the Parents’ assurances that the trial court proceeded to involuntarily ter minate their rights. Therefore, the Parents have invited the alleged error of which they now complain. Error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error. C.T. v. Marion Cnty. Dept. of Child

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 6 of 7Servs., 896 N.E.2d 571, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied (2009). The trial court’s involuntary termination of parental rights is affirmed.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05

- 1504

- JT

- 157 | D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 5 Page 7 of 7