Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 1 of 11

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Danielle L. Gregory

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of:

N.T. (Minor Child)

 and

W.T. (Father),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

January 14, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1506-JT-489

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

The Honorable Larry E. Bradley, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1410-JT-441
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 11

Baker, Judge.

[1] W.T. (Father) appeals the judgment of the juvenile court terminating his 

parental rights as to his child, N.T. (Child), arguing that the judgment is not 

supported by sufficient evidence. Finding that the juvenile court’s judgment is 

supported by sufficient evidence, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] Child was born to Father and T.D. (Mother) on August 6, 2009. The three 

lived together, along with Mother’s other children, until Mother and Father 

ended their relationship in 2012. Child remained in Mother’s care after Father 

left the home. Child is developmentally delayed and has been diagnosed with 

post-traumatic stress disorder. 

[3] On December 18, 2012, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a 

petition alleging that Child was a child in need of services (CHINS). The 

petition alleged that Mother lacked stable housing and suffered from serious 

mental health issues that required immediate medical attention. The petition 

also alleged that Father had not demonstrated a willingness or ability to care for 

Child and that his whereabouts were unknown. 

[4] A family case manager (FCM), Kristie Smith, was assigned to the case. FCM 

Smith spoke with Father by phone in February 2013 and informed him of the 

allegations. Father acknowledged to FCM Smith that he had received a 

summons and an advisement of rights in the mail. Father’s phone was then 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 3 of 11

disconnected and FCM Smith lost contact with him in April 2013. Father 

never again contacted FCM Smith to inquire about Child’s welfare. 

[5] On January 2, 2013, Mother entered a written admission to the facts contained 

in the CHINS petition. Father made his first appearance in court on April 10, 

2013, and the juvenile court conducted an initial hearing. Following the 

hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Father would have supervised parenting 

time—he would visit Child only twice, once in April 2013 and once in January 

2015. The juvenile court also ordered Father to appear at a pre-trial hearing on 

May 15, 2013, without further notice. 

[6] Father failed to appear at the May 15 hearing. He also failed to appear at a 

periodic review hearing held on July 17, 2013. At that point, Father’s counsel 

informed the juvenile court that Father had not responded to her regarding his 

case despite numerous efforts on her part to contact him. Accordingly, the 

juvenile court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw her representation. 

[7] On August 21, 2013, the juvenile court held a default hearing and Father again 

failed to appear. After finding that Father had received proper service, the 

juvenile court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. It ordered that Father would 

receive no services until he made an appearance in court or at DCS “to 

demonstrate a desire or ability to care for [Child].” Ex. p. 79.

[8] A permanency hearing was held on September 24, 2014, and Father again 

failed to appear. Noting that neither parent had demonstrated the ability or 

willingness to care for Child, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 4 of 11

from reunification to adoption. A review hearing was held on January 21, 

2015, at which Father, who was again absent, was represented by counsel. The 

juvenile court maintained Child’s placement in foster care, but ordered that 

Father would not have visitation until he made an appearance in court. 

[9] On October 20, 2014, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother and Father’s 

parental rights as to Child. Father appeared at a pre-trial hearing on November 

14, 2014, at which point the juvenile court appointed him counsel. He 

acknowledged that he had been served with a summons, an advisement of 

rights, and a copy of the petition. Father appeared again, this time by 

telephone, at a December 5, 2014, pre-trial hearing. He did not appear, but was 

represented by counsel, at two subsequent pre-trial hearings held on January 2 

and March 12, 2015. 

[10] The juvenile court held a termination factfinding hearing on April 2 and April 

9, 2015. Father’s only appearance at this hearing was by telephone on April 9. 

On May 6, 2015, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Mother and 

Father’s parental rights as to Child. It noted that Father had shown no interest 

in the court proceedings, had failed to maintain contact with the FCM and his 

attorney, and had only visited Child on two occasions. Father now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[11] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a 

parent's right to establish a home and raise her children. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 

1257, 1259 (Ind. 2009). Our Supreme Court has observed that “[a] parent’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 5 of 11

interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is ‘perhaps the 

oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.’” Id. (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 

U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). However, this right is not absolute and the interests of 

parents must be subordinated to those of their children when parents are unable 

or unwilling to meet the responsibilities that accompany this right. Id. at 1259–

60.

[12] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 1260. We consider 

only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that are most

favorable to the judgment. Id. When the juvenile court enters findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Id. We 

determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then determine 

whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will reverse the juvenile

court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous, meaning that the juvenile court’s 

findings do not support its conclusions or its conclusions do not support its 

judgment. Id.

[13] Father makes two main arguments on appeal. First, he argues that DCS failed 

in its duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with Child. Second, he 

takes issue with several of the juvenile court’s findings and argues that its 

judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence. We deal with each of these 

arguments in turn. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 6 of 11

[14] In regard to Father’s first argument, he is indeed correct to point out that our 

CHINS statute requires DCS to “make reasonable efforts to preserve and 

reunify families.” Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5. DCS can attempt to do this by 

providing parents with services designed “to make it possible for the child to 

return safely to the child’s home.” Id. Father points out that he was not 

provided with any services in this case. However, this was not due to any lack 

of effort on the part of DCS. Rather, it was the direct result of Father’s failure 

to adequately participate in the CHINS proceeding. DCS contends that it was 

fully prepared to offer services to Father had he attended the juvenile court’s 

proceedings, appeared at DCS, or maintained contact with the FCM. 

[15] Furthermore, the statute that Father relies upon applies to CHINS proceedings,

and we are far beyond the CHINS stage of this case. This Court has previously 

observed that,

in seeking termination of parental rights, the DCS has no 

obligation to plead and prove that services have been offered to 

the parent to assist in fulfilling parental obligations. Likewise, we 

have stated on several occasions that, although the DCS is 

generally required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and 

reunify families during the CHINS proceedings, that requirement

under our CHINS statutes is not a requisite element of our 

parental rights termination statute, and a failure to provide

services does not serve as a basis on which to directly attack a 

termination order as contrary to law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 7 of 11

In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quotations omitted) 

(emphasis original), trans. denied. Accordingly, Father has waived this issue by 

failing to raise it in the CHINS proceeding. 

[16] Father next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the juvenile 

court’s determination. A petition to terminate parental rights must allege, 

among other things:

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons 

for placement outside the home of the parents will 

not be remedied.

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a 

threat to the well-being of the child.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been 

adjudicated a child in need of services; [and]

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).1 Indiana Code section 31-37-14-2 requires DCS to 

prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Father argues that 

 

1 The statute also requires that the child be removed from the parent’s care for a certain period of time and 

that there be a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child following termination. I.C. § 31-35-2-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 8 of 11

several of the juvenile court’s findings are erroneous and that its decision to 

terminate his parental rights cannot stand without them. 

[17] He first takes issue with the following finding regarding the CHINS proceeding:

7. [Father’s] whereabouts were unknown at the time the 

[initial CHINS] Petition was filed, but appeared for a 

continued initial hearing on April 10, 2013, at which time 

counsel was appointed for him.

Appellant’s App. p. 17. Father argues that it is not true that his whereabouts 

were unknown, as Mother knew his whereabouts. Appellant’s Br. p. 16. 

However, even were we to assume that this finding was erroneous, this would 

not affect our review of the juvenile court’s judgment in this case. The initial 

proceedings were continued, in part, because of Father’s absence, and Father 

does not dispute that he was later made aware of those proceedings and given 

an opportunity to participate. Therefore, whether his whereabouts were 

initially known or unknown is inconsequential. 

[18] Father also argues that the juvenile court’s next finding is erroneous:

8. [Father] may have attended one other court hearing. His 

whereabouts became unknown and his court appointed 

attorney withdrew [her] appearance. 

 

4(b)(2)(A), (D). Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that these requirements were 

met in this case. Appellant’s Br. p. 20. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 9 of 11

Appellant’s App. p. 17. Father argues that this only indicates that he was not 

communicating with his attorney, not that his whereabouts were unknown. We 

find this to be a distinction without a difference. If several attempts are made to 

contact a person at his residence and no response is received, one can certainly 

say that the person’s whereabouts are unknown. 

[19] Finally, Father takes issue with the following finding:

18. ... [Father] attended one or two court hearings, visited 

[Child] two times since December of 2012, failed to 

contact the family case manager and made his 

whereabouts unknown. He failed to appear at either trial 

date in this termination matter. He has demonstrated he is 

not willing to make the effort to be a parent to [Child]. 

Id.2 Father argues that “[p]art of this finding is not supported by the evidence.” 

Appellant’s App. p. 23. His argument is effectively a repeat of the claim that he 

did not make his whereabouts unknown. Additionally, in an effort to excuse 

his absence, he alleges that Mother made misrepresentations to him regarding 

the status of the proceedings. However, even had this been the case, Father had 

been given notice of future proceedings when he initially attended court, and he 

failed to maintain contact with his attorney or with the FCM, both of whom 

were actively trying to communicate with him regarding the proceedings. 

 

2

Father also takes issue with the juvenile court’s finding that “[d]isposition was held on August 21, 2013. 

No services were ordered but the family case manager at the time would have referred Father Engagement.” 

Appellant’s App. p. 17-18. Father argues that he was never referred any services. However, the juvenile 

court merely found that services would have been referred had Father complied with its order that he appear in 

court or at DCS. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 10 of 11

Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could certainly have found that 

Father lacked interest in the proceedings, which indicated that he was not 

willing to make the effort to parent Child. 

[20] A Father’s failure to show interest in his child’s termination proceedings is 

certainly probative of whether the conditions that led to the child’s removal are 

likely to be remedied and whether termination is in the child’s best interests. 

See In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 83-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (father’s failure to 

attend proceedings resulted in “no evidentiary basis to allow the trial court to 

conclude that Father’s neglect would not continue”). It is not the case here that 

Father was unaware of the proceedings or that his attorney had not attempted

to contact him. We are therefore dealing with a knowing failure to appear. 

Accepting Father’s argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence in this case 

would allow parents in termination proceedings to simply not attend those 

proceedings and then argue that the juvenile court could not terminate their 

rights because it knew nothing about them. It is obvious that this cannot, and 

should not, be the law. 

[21] Furthermore, the juvenile court’s decision was based on more than Father’s 

failure to appear in court. Father had lost contact with both his attorney and 

with the FCM. He had shown no interest in Child’s welfare and had only 

visited Child on two occasions. We believe that this evidence was sufficient to 

support a termination of his parental rights, as it indicated that Father was 

unwilling to parent Child and that Child’s special needs would go unmet in 

Father’s care. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1506-JT-489 | January 14, 2016 Page 11 of 11

[22] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed. 

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.