MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 31 2018, 9:09 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Daniel G. Foote Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Frances Barrow Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In re the Termination of the October 31, 2018 Parent-Child Relationship of: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JT-1348 D.U.H. and E.U. (Minor Children) Appeal from the Marion Superior and Court P.U.R. (Father), The Honorable Gary Chavers, Appellant-Respondent, Judge Pro Tem v. The Honorable Larry Bradley, Magistrate The Indiana Department of Trial Court Cause No. Child Services, 49D09-1710-JT-913 Appellee-Petitioner, 49D09-1710-JT-911 and Child Advocates, Inc., Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1348 | October 31, 2018 Page 1 of 25 Robb, Judge. Case Summary and Issues [1] P.U.R. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights to D.U.H. and E.U. (collectively, the “Children”), raising three issues which we consolidate and restate as two: (1) whether the juvenile court’s termination order is supported by clear and convincing evidence and (2) whether Father was denied a fair hearing. Concluding the termination order is not clearly erroneous and the hearing was not unfair, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] Father and M.H. (“Mother”) are the parents of the Children, who were born on July 13, 2011, and December 29, 2013.1 In February 2016, while the Children were residing with Mother, Father witnessed Mother smoking methamphetamine from a pipe as he returned the Children to her home. The next day, Father returned to Mother’s home and recorded her smoking methamphetamine while the Children were elsewhere in the home. Father then reported these incidents to the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”). 1 Mother’s parental rights were also terminated but she does not participate in this appeal. Accordingly, we limit our recitation of the facts to those applicable to Father. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1348 | October 31, 2018 Page 2 of 25 The Children were taken into custody without a court order on February 21, 2016. [3] On February 23, 2016, DCS filed a petition alleging the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”) because of the parents’ inability to provide Children “with a safe, stable, and appropriate living environment free from substance abuse.” Exhibits, Volume I at 18. DCS alleged that despite being offered services in the past, Mother continued to use methamphetamine and her whereabouts were currently unknown and further alleged that Father was unable to ensure the Children’s safety and well-being while in the care of Mother. At the conclusion of the initial hearing, the juvenile court ordered Children removed from Mother’s care and placed with Father. [4] At a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals