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 : ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLEE : TERI A. FLORY GREGORY F. ZOELLER Flory and Smith Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana ROBERT J. HENKE DAVID E. COREY Deputies Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION ) OF THE PARENT

- CHILD RELATIONSHIP ) OF L.T.W.B ., Minor Child, and S.A.B., Mother, ) and H.L.B., Father, ) ) H.L.B., Father, ) ) Appellant

- Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 79A02

- 1307

- JT

- 669 ) THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD ) SERVICES, ) ) Appellee

- Petitioner. )

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Faith A. Graham , Judge The Honorable Crystal A. Sanders, Magistrate Cause No. 79D03

- 1303

- JT

- 24 February 20, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION
- NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge2

H.L.B. (Father) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to L.T.W.B. (Child). He argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue. We affirm. FAC TS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 Child was born on April 27, 2012, to S.A.B. 2 (Mother) and Father. The Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved with the family because Mother left the hospital without the Child after Child’s birth and her whereabouts became unknown. Father visited Child in the hospital, and was advised DCS was investigating Mother’s whereabouts. Father submitted to a drug test at that time, and it came back positive for THC, a chemical found in marijuana. On May 2, DCS filed a petit ion to declare Child a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) based on Mother’s abandonment of Child, Father’s positive drug screen, the presence of cocaine in Child’s meconium at birth, Mother’s lack of prenatal care, and Mother’s use of drugs three days prior to Child’s birth. On June 15, the juvenile court adjudicated Child a CHINS and ordered Father to refrain from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol, attend all court hearings, obtain and maintain safe housing, obtain and maintain a legal and stable source of income, obey the law,

1 The record on appeal in this case was prepared pursuant to the Indiana Supreme Court’s “Or der Establishing the Indiana Court Reporting Pilot Project for Exploring the Use of an Audio/Visual Record on Appeal” issued on September 18, 2012, and effective on July 1, 2012. See Ind. Supreme Court Case No. 94S00

- 1209

- MS

522. Therefore, the citations to the transcr ipt will be to the “A/V Rec .” We acknowledge the ongoing cooperation of the Honorable Faith A. Graham of the Tippecanoe Superior Court and parties’ counsel in the execution of this pilot project.

2 Mother does not participate in this appea l, and we therefore provide facts regarding Mother only as necessary to address Father’s arguments.3

participate in substance abuse assessments and follow all recommendations, participate in mental health assessments and follow all recommendations, participate in parenting assessments and follow all recommendations, submit to ran dom drug screens, participate in visitation with Child, and par ticipate in home

- based therapy. Father completed the required assessments, but he did not complete any of the services recommended based on th os e assessments. He participated in visitation wi th Child during May 2012, but he did not see Child thereafter. Fa ther was arrested once and convicted twice during the course of the
proce edings, he tested positive for cocaine, admitted to using cocaine, and admitted to abusing alcohol. On March 6, 2013 , DCS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights. The juvenile court held a hearing the same day and appointed counsel for Father. On May 6, Father filed a motion to continue the fact

- finding hearing scheduled for May 28 based

o n a conflict on his counsel’s calendar. In that same motion, Father acknowledged the court had discretion to appoint him different counsel in lieu of continu ing the case . On May 8, the juvenile court denied Father’s motion to continue and appointed him n ew counsel. Father did not request an other continuance, and his counsel participated in the May 28 hearing. On July 2, the juvenile court issued its order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights. DISCUSSION AND DECISION “The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In re M.B ., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied . The right to raise one’s own child should4

not be termi nated solely because there is a better home available for the child, but parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. In re K.S. , 750 N.E.2d 832, 836

- 37 (Ind. Ct. App

. 2001). Father a lleges the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his May 6, 2013, motion to continue. The decision to grant or deny a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnt y . Office of Family & Children , 841 N.E.2d 615, 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) , trans. denied

. We will reverse the court’ s decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Id

. An abuse of discretion occurs when the party requesting the continuance has shown good cause for granting the motion and the juvenile court denies it. Id

. No abuse of discretion will be found when the moving party is not prejudiced by the denial of its motion. Id

. Failure to raise an issue before the juvenile court constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal. Runk el v. Miami County DCS , 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) , trans. denied

. “In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’ ” Id

. Waiver based on failure to raise an issue before the lower court a pplies to issues which may have constitutional implications

. Hite v. Vanderburgh Cnty. OFC , 845 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Fat he r asked for a continuance based on counsel’s unavailability on the hearing date,
but his motion also asserted: “In the alternative, as this is an appointed case, the Court has the discretion to appoint a different attorney to handle this matter.” (App. at 15.) T he5

juvenile court denied the motion to continue and appointed new counsel. Between May 8 and the hearing date, May 28, Father did not request a nother continuance. Nor did he request a continuance at the hearing. See A/V Rec. 8:41:00

- :10 (court a sked if there were any preliminary matters and Father indicated there were not). Therefore, the issue is waived because F ather did not present it to the juvenile court. Waiver notwithstanding, there was no abuse of discretion

. Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his May 6, 2013, motion to continue because his new counsel, who was appointed at his request and as part of the juvenile court’s May 8 order, did not have ample time to “become familiar with all aspects of a yea r - long case, which included multiple reports, orders, and filings.” (Br. of Appellant at 12.) However, Father does not indicate how he was prejudice d b y counsel’s short time to prepare for the fact

- finding hearing . There was overwhelming evidence
suppor ting the involuntary termination of Father’s rights

- he had failed multiple drug screens, refused to participate in services and visitation, and been arrested twice during the proceedings. Additionally, Father does not allege there were witnesses that sh ould have been called on his behalf or testimony that should have been presented. Father’s counsel cross

examined all witnesses during the fact

- finding hearing and offered a closing statement giving reasons why termination was not appropriate

. Therefore, we cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue. See Fink v. State , 469 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) ( no abuse of discretion when Fink showed no prejudice resulting from denial of his request for a con tinuance in order that a new attorney might6

prepare his defense ) , on reh’ g , 471 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)

. 3 Affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.

3 As Father has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion to continue, he has also not demonstrated his due process rights were violat ed.