*1 displayed requisite justifiable that he level without say cause communicate demonstrating in a continued persistence significantly daughter, his noting E.A., and the evidence shows once, terest he his daughter that he called and that his so. The chose to end efforts do attempt he mail did not communication following reveals that his commit record despite awareness that DOC, sent few ment to he Mother adoptive parents represented by were in which E.A. was letters mentioned counsel and therefore he “could have initi birthday on his second sent E.A. card through ated contact their counsel or the Appellant any of birthday. did not receive her). court to communicate with” ble, ing mail period pellant did mail kept Father’s letters the address forwarded to her new of over two filing indeed to until 2012 he not send a sent returned as undelivera of his Mother Appellant years petition communication testified prior to had been send address. then adoption. Adoptive had her for a Ap she required pursuant tered 8. tion clude We of E.A. that Appellant’s affirm For the the trial court. by Adoptive Conclusion foregoing decree of adoption Ind.Code consent reasons, § 31-19-9- was we con adop not en To the extent Appellant suggests Affirmed. writing letters fears of stopped due to RILEY, J„ FRIEDLANDER, Sr. DOC, repercussions at the note that J., concur. presented there evidence was him to stop Mother asked or other writing him with action if punitive
wise threatened Also, although he continued to write her. that contact Appellant’s we find between of marginal sister and Mother rele vance, we note Mother indicated (Minor Child), of D.B. the Matter phoned had his sister not her since Child Need of Services. phone has had the num and Mother same (Father), Appellant-Respondent, D.B. ber since time. Based upon the record before us v. clear convincing Department
there was Indiana Child trial court that E.A. before the while Services, Appellee-Petitioner custody person “in another [and] (1) period year least one [Appellant] Advocates, Inc., Co-Appellee Child justifiable ... without cause to fail[ed] (Guardian Litem). ad significantly communicate [E.A.] § to do so.” when able Ind.Code 31-19-9- 49A02-1501-JC-48. No. 8(a)(2)(A). Appellant’s to the consent Appeals Court of of Indiana. req of E.A. adoption was therefore Sept. 2015. O.R., See In re Adoption uired.2 (holding at 973-975 the natu father, incarcerated, ral who was failed 19—11—1(a)(1)). (citing note that if a "[e]ven We court determines at 974 Ind.Code. 31— Here, parent’s required that a natural consent is stated in its order the court that it was adoption, grant Adoptive deter- still E.A.’s interests to Fa- best adoption petition, Appellant mine whether in the child's best ther’s does not chal- O.R., Adoption lenge interests.” In re 16 N.E.3d determination. court’s *2 ,as parent fitness
the father’s does prove burden to meet him unfit. DCS’s statutory also We find framework related children in other states'does when the contem- plated biological par- *3 Consequently, ent. juve- reverse the finding nile court’s order this child to be
Facts (Child) was
[2] D.B. born out of state (Father) (Mother) to D.B. on C.H. August 28, present 2012. Father was birth, signed affidavit, paternity Child’s and was involved Child’s life for approx- ' imately four months. When Child was old, four months Mother and Child moved Indianapolis. Father did not relocate with them and now lives in Minnesota. [3] After Mother and Child moved Indianapolis, Father had little contact with daughter. his He sent money to Mother when requested provide She but did not regular support. alleges Father McMath, County Patricia Caress Marion prevented him seeing Mother or hav- IN, Agency, Indianapolis, Public Defender ing regular contact on a with Child basis Attorney for Appellant. number, blocked phone his that she preventing him from calling to check in on Zoeller, Gregory F. Attorney General At the time petition Child. the CHINS Indiana, Henke, Abigail Robert J. R. filed, was the last time Father had seen General, Recker, Deputy Attorneys India- July inwas 2013. Child IN, Attorneys napolis, for Appellee.
was little, alone, is The child’s actual and is virtual (CHINS). Likewise, the fact that BAKER, Judge. murdered contact with insufficient to A two-year-old is a by stranger father Mother. But child’s father in need support who has had lives child’s out services mother finding figure. very fact, De were then shot himself brother ings occurred. J.H. On and the five-month-old son of Mother and [4] killed living gunshot In August were August by wound. J.H. the home when- 10, 2014, Mother’s later'died as a result Child and their Mother and Child Mother was shot boyfriend, home. the shoot- her J.H., half- J.H. partment Child Services (DCS) was un DCS removed both children on Au- gather gust petition able to alleging sufficient information 10 and filed- a about appear unable were CHINS 10. and her half-brother1 Child today telephoni- participated but August 2014. Child was on cally At because he could miss work godmother. kinship care with plan day- time, today. Father has real unknown. whereabouts were Father’s later, in the was placed [Child] Father con- event one week care Approximately immediately. ini- with him for an appeared and then tacted DCS hearing August tial employed with presently 11. Father is mother, both on the Placement cess set Father and who lives in forth September, Child’s the Interstate Illinois. Children DCS maternal began At the (ICPC) for Compact grand- time pro- worked there weeks. ther nets months. Creative Care approximately Depending on Resources approximately $1200 hours, every Fa- two *4 pro- factfinding hearing, 16. MCDCS has limited information re- for yet completed not been Fa- cess had Background garding checks Father. ther. follows: Among other Child. court found that Child was its filing few never months until 7. ther did July 8. Mother not last saw her 6. Prior to care while [Child] of hours held a Indianapolis By Father has had three seen months. On July 4, 2013, Following of the CHINS paid was born. After Mother moved money his own old, not see [Child] October factfinding Mother 2013. things, on each with He was also Father had when she asked. in CHINS July [Child] admission, support when 6, 2014, was in a shelter over hearing, petition. the court did hearing [Child] a very 2013 so he had [Child] not see [Child] being filed supervised year. [Child] present Father has a often. regarding only found since juvenile juvenile Prior was 4 when sent vis- Fa- his He as a bonded pletely would cause her matic ther!,] can time Mother’s therapy young child transition [Child] [Child] loss approved through the ICPC Father and been as not 19. his care will have not been 17. girlfriend, age, so that only Transition ... completed.. loss Mother. is bonded to uproot to her he had no to further require [Child] two months needs over [Child] [Child] completed. and completed her services!,] a maternal * * * has suffered the trau- a has suffered to year. a home relationship death, gradual can establish a bond [Child] suddenly or services be her traumatize a ago. serious gradual godmother Father, Clearly, had whether on study grandmother transition If process, to Father or emotional Father a horrific with her. not seen Father’s so at given com- it be very Fa- not so to her. the results living 9. Father harm Absent Minnesota checks and home girlfriend apart- background and her child in an girlfriend He study, safety with his Father can- ment. lived [Child’s] To year suddenly not not be for over but his name is determined. send [Child], Mother has been lease. child whose part appeal. 1. The son of Mother and is not this J.H. (Ind.2009). by sibling’s her just
murdered father The conditions for placement required ago, months two Minnesota with a the ICPC “are de signed provide complete man that and accurate be her father but who has information regarding poten children and participated in her life would be from, tial adoptive parents sending state young another traumatic event her to a receiving cause, public involve greater life that could her process in the authorities in order to en separated harm. would [Child] sure children opportunity have the to be godmother, grandmother her her placed in a suitable environment.” Id. sibling, only remaining her constants Any life. transition to Father[ ] Appellant’s App. p. 62-64. Father now appeals. ther has established a needs to be gradual bond ensure that Fa- [Child]. lows: plained ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND POLICY It is the purpose purpose General Assembly policy the ICPC as fol has ex party to cooperate states each Discussion and Decision placement of interstate children to I. Application of Parent the end that: First, we consider. Father’s (a) Each requiring placement shall argument that the ICPC does receive the maximum opportunity *5 placement of a biological child with her in a suitable.environment parent. This statutory is an of person issue inter with a or an institution n having qualifications pretation, appropriate which apply a de novo provide facilities to necessary State, of standard review. N.L. v. 989 degree type desirable of care. (Ind.2013). N.E.2d 777 Family toring between states All bers dealing state lines.’ Bester Lake Compacts: of the (Ind.2005) (quoting states, entered into “‘an fifty in the agreement of states dependent [9] ” The Ties that Bind 2 ICPC. Children, An a problem are now to facilitate the between two or more interstate Id. The broad children.” Id. v. P. placement for the 839 participating Hardy, that Cnty. “cooperation compact purpose transcends and moni Interstate Office of purpose 143,153 (1982)). mem of (c) The proper (b) mation uate a may full tain posed placement, thereby promoting may for quirements child. state where a placement compliance obtain the most the circumstances of the have full which the appropriate on the basis' of projected placement authorities is made. opportunity child the placement authorities protection is to complete which applicable of be placed the state to ascer- is made before of the infor- eval- pro- re- templated will be served safeguards for “[a]mong Our children, sent Supreme the most live with whom it is con Court has ob important adoptive Ind.Code (d) ments for the Appropriate promoted. 31-28-4-1 jurisdictional care art.,I.2 children must arrange- parents in another state, is the [ICPC].” argues the ICPC H., Adoption In re 904 N.E.2d does not apply placement of a child with of Infants applies DCS cites to ICPC, a newer version of which is located at Indiana Code 604 apply placement biological parent. the ICPC does
an out-of-state We E.g., III forth agree. parent. Article sets with an out-of-state McComb (3rd placement for out of state: Wambaugh, conditions F.2d v. 934 481-82 Cir.1991) (holding the ICPC send, (a) sending agency A parental care” “substitutes or bring, brought or to be sent cause placement parent, emphasiz with a not to any into state a child party importance avoiding “entangle ing the as a placement care or foster rights the natural of families” ment with possible adoption preliminary to circum highlighting “the limited sending agency complies unless the requirement justify article a state’s interference under stances each life”); Dep’t receiving family III and with state’s with Ark. Human governing placement 553, 563-64, Huff, laws Ark. Servs. v. (2002) children. (holding that the ICPC S.W.3d par with- a placement does not (b) causing sending, bringing, or Before ent). Therefore, to the extent brought child into be sent juvenile court’s CHINS determination in receiving state fact this case rested on the that the ICPC care or preliminary as a to a foster process yet completed had not been adoption, possible sending agen- Father, appropriate pub- respect shall furnish the wé discount that basis cy adjudication. lic authorities in-'the written receiving state.... send, bring, or notice of the intention to place Father next II. CHINS Adjudication argues that there is Thus, as a makes IC. 31-28-4-1 preliminary clear DCS contends that plain art. Ill language a possible (emphases “the answer applies only foster care adoption.3 added). statute plained insufficient as follows: nile court’s determination that Child is a *6 appellate nature review Supreme of a supporting of a CHINS CHINS Court has ex proceeding finding juve action; A is proceeding CHINS a civil question of the the whether thus, prove by prepon State a is in “the must Appellee’s circumstantial nature.” derance of the evidence a child is p. contrary, Br. To the that a 18. the answer juvenile the statutory as defined code.” question is And CHINS that nature. N.E., (Ind. 102, re quite provides the In 919 N.E.2d 105 plainly statute 2010). applies only reweigh or foster care neither the evidence We home, judge credibility a A is of wit preadoptive biological parent nor the' Accordingly, Dep’t Egly County of these. hold neither nesses. v. Blackford chapter newer section version has version found 31-28-4 to this 31-28-6-1. case. substantively substantially different express appli- lan- no opinion We herein to the as guage But than older version. newer cability of the ICPC to newer version thirty-five version is not effective until states parent. out-of-state it, have enacted 31—28—6—1 art. I.C. XIV(b). Currently, only ten-states enact- have brings 3. VI also the out-of-state institu Article -http:// ed the newer the ICPC. See version adjudicated juve a tional of a child www.aphsa.org/content/AAICPC/en/New delinquent purview under of the nile (last 6, 2015). Aug. ICPC.html visited There- § 31-28-4-1 ICPC. I.C. art. VI. fore, the version in section 31-28-6-1 found effective, yet will is not and we
605 (B)- unlikely Welfare, provided Pub. N.E.2d 1235 is to be or ac- 592 (Ind.1992). only cepted evi- We without the coercive-inter- consider trial de- supports dence that court’s vention of the court. cision and reasonable inferences drawn Supreme interpreted Our Court has this upon a
therefrom. Id. We reverse require provision “three basic elements: showing that of the trial decision parent’s or actions inactions have clearly Id. erroneous. seriously' endangered the There are three DCS must elements unmet, (perhaps child’s needs are prove juvenile adjudicate for a court to critically) most those needs are un- prove must first child CHINS. DCS likely to be met State without coercion.” ¡.age eighteen; the child is under the S.D., re 2 In N.E.3d at prove DCS one eleven different ] statutory circumstances exist that would case, following [16 In this ev CHINS; .finally, make the child undisputed: idence is cases, prove all DCS must the child (cid:127) biological Father is parent. Child’s care, treatment, or needs rehabilitation (cid:127) a stable home which he or is he she year. has been one living for over He provided unlikely she girlfriend eight- lives with his accepted without coercive interven- year-old child. N.E., re tion of the 919 court. In - at 105. N.E.2d (cid:127) There is no indication that Father’s K.D., (Ind. re 1253-54 In N.E.2d is inappropriate. home 2012) (footnote omitted). Here, ordinarily private sphere CHINS State’s re “[n]ot S.D., DCS parens pursuant need every endangered Supreme alleged patriae services, to Indiana Code section Court that Child was a intrusion permitting (Ind.2014). child is cautioned into family.” .. (cid:127) (cid:127) 'makes approximately weeks. with childcare Father has stable placed with him. He Father has looked into care facilities for Child family members who could if the need arose. employment $1200 also possible should has friends every she be child- help two (cid:127) Father-wants Child 31-34-1-1, as provides which follows: him. A services if child in need (18) eighteen before the child becomes undergone is undeniable that Child has It
years age: past year. trauma in the It significant (1) or physical the child’s mental condi- argued be “mental could that her condition seriously seriously tion is or impaired seriously impaired seriously or endan- is endangered inability, as a result a gered” as of that trauma. I.C. result refusal, neglect par- or of the child’s 31-34t-1-1(1). certainly has But DCS ent, guardian, supply to or custodian mental-, proved that her and emotional not food, the child with cloth- .necessary is the “inabili- condition result Father’s shelter, care, education, ing, medical refusal, neglect to'supply or ... ty, supervision; or shelter, food, clothing, necessary child (2) care, treatment, the child or needs care, education, or supervision^]” medical rehabilitation that: is contrary, prepared To the Father Id. (A) receiving; immediately. all of supply the child is those necessities not
606
[17] It
is undeniable
that Father has
we are
not
persuaded
that
there
is
any
to contravene Fa-
evidence
the record
significant
in Child’s
presence
a
not been
upon
that
ther’s statements
release
an
not
as
exam
should
be lauded
life. He
(K.E.’s
his father
plans to
he
live
It is likewise
ple
parenting.
of excellent
work
grandfather)
paternal
really
not
that he
Child do
undeniable
through
him
did
Vectren. While
paren
as
of his
one another
a result
know
Father
claim, DCS did
not substantiate this
not
Moreover,
the trauma
given
tal absence.
support a con-
present
evidence
Child, to remove
already experienced by
finding.
tradictive
No evidence indi-
caregiver
knows and
from the
she
her
fabricating his
was
cates
Father
an
place
unknown
loves and
that his fa-
plans
employment
trauma.
caregiver
be an additional
will
home is unsuitable
children.
ther’s
facts, alone,
to a
do not lead
But these
or inac-
Id.,
“actions
647,
conclusion
Father’s
607 juvenile conclusion placement prelimi court’s foster care or as a supporting Therefore, nary Child is a to a possible adoption,” which does reverse. not refer to the situation where a child is is reversed. [22] The judgment of the juvenile being sent to parent. See Ind.Code III. However, live with this language his or § 31-28-4-1, is her natural disposi- art. tive. Article VIII of the ICPC expressly RILEY, BROWN, J., J., concurs, and sets forth of the the limitations ICPC’s opinion. dissents with applicability, and this section does not pre application placements clude its to agency BROWN, Judge, dissenting. jority’s conclusion that the ICPC does not the interstate Bester ring here concludes natural dren I do Children, natural apply served ICPC does ICPC does not some not agree others with natural parents). out-of-state to an v. Lake that whether the ICPC cases I parents parent not apply respectfully the Indiana jurisdictions have concluded out-of-state holding reunification under those circumstances that, Cnty. 146 n. 2 is parents. Op. all circumstances. to reunification of chil this is based apply dissent Office Supreme open question have concluded the placement (Ind.2005) (refer ICPC always on its language, The of children with placements does Family applies Court ob does not. majority the case 603-04. with a apply and ma & purpose of X VIII does not Families v. 28-4-1, preliminary placement placements liberally that Article ation ences the [ICPC’s] § “shall ICPC covers the children, that, child with a 31-28-4-1, provides (Fla.Ct.App.1999) non-resident between placement art. X. See construed, liberally the ICPC is with non-resident X provides ato Benway, art'. VIII.4 natural purposes.” although participating preclude monitoring possible adoption, out-of-state in foster care or as a parents. construed provisions Dep’t parent). (observing the ICPC shall be Moreover, Article III its holding facilitate Ind.Code So.2d application See states placement parents, of Children & dependent effectuate Ind.Code that the cooper Article Article ICPC refer § 438- 31- based language ICPC. Having established that the The purpose of the ICPC is to its terms does not preclude its applica tion out-of-state with natural cooperation facilitate participating between parents, question monitoring in the becomes when the states hand, applicable. applica § On one dependent children. See Ind.Code 31- 28-4-1, majority art. I. The cites to tion make Article sense ICPC, III related conditions for where there out-of- parent may placement, language on the to care for focuses state be unfit which refers to the transfer of a child “for or a public agency welfare VIII, "Limitations,” provides leaving any 4. Article titled such the child with relative or part: nonagency guardian receiving in the compact This to: shall not state.... (a) sending bringing of a added). (emphasis Ind.Code 31—28—4—1 by parent, steppar- into a ent, Notably missing from the statute is refer- sister, grandparent, brother or adult sending agency. ence to a aunt, guardian adult uncle or *9 any evidence The court does not have requested information from ICPC not the the is unfit to care for parent that the par of the out-of-state office the state child hand, of On application other the ent. the any not evidence court does seek The make ICPC does where evidence sense parent’s to the fitness regard suggests out-of-state court before the the for child care the child, may unfit to the parent care for request placement At the time a sought regarding court has evidence the the not parent child with place the fitness for parent’s the to care the to the office been submitted public agency has sub and a child welfare the state a the the request mitted ICPC office where ICPC office the state In placement. other state the related parent has not previously the lives deed, the Association Administrators child request place the denied a .Compact the on the Placement Interstate parent with the “AAICPC”) (the has recom Children jurisdiction The court terminates its approach determining such an mended place- over at the of the the.child time applicable. when the ICPC AAICPC ment Regulation provides in part: No. 3 a apply The ICPC also does not when parent a A from whom or in who is not a ward of court child the not the removed: When the child custody public the. of a child welfare places parent child with from court the agency parent goes to live with- a not,removed, child was whom the another state. par- no evidence or apply a court The ICPC does when any does not ent is seek unfit, agency seeks to public child welfare parent that the place parent out- child located unfit, is either or the court relin- fit or has evi- agency the court if of-state quishes jurisdiction over the child imme- parent dence that the not fit diately parent. upon with the care or or court- for if responsi- shall Receiving state have par- agency seeks an evaluation monitoring bility supervision ent’s The ICPC fitness. having placement. the court made the parent it is placement with a if when (found http:// No. Regulation AAICPC at will known the child remain ward www.aphsa.org/content/AAICPC/en/ICPC custody will remain in court or (last Aug. Regulations.html) visited public óf a agency child welfare after 2015) added). Additionally, (Emphasis going parent. live with following: AAICPC states (found at FAQ http://www.aphsa. AAICPC Question: org/content/AÁICPC/en/résources/ govern When [] does (last ICPCFAQ.html) Aug. visited placement of a child the child’s 2015) added). (Emphases parent does parents when facts here that DCS be [26] The are type placement? govern this gan process set forth Answer: factfinding Father and time The ICPC does not non- when hearing, that had com process not been juris- who is delinquent child under the including study a home and back pleted, diction court is of a out-of-state Additionally, ground checks Father. parent Child, with her or the follow- when Father had little contact with did ing provide regular support, exist: lived conditions *10 girlfriend apartment with his an but was an mechanism for gleaning effective lease, plan the not on did have a for maintaining evidence and a- watchful daycare, had worked for his em eye current placement”). over the Arizona juvenile was awith non-custodial port its vices ployer for App.2001) (noting family member who risdictions that have that, placed with her facts child, sending agency is a and a home guidelines Father cannot be custodial cable to out-of-state sults of the ICPC or Ariz. child essentially a stranger to Child. The based whom she support application agency court’s conclusion Dep’t 74, rights ICPC set approximately 22 P.3d acting study, forth Regulation findings to or was bonded. Under Econ. determined.” Child that the godmother with a by through parent found the ICPC [Child’s] child guardianship does, background Sec. “[a]bsent 518-520 six that out-of-state No. when the parent these AAICPC, protective ser majority not have full v. months, and safety ICPC. See concluding Leonardo, of a child state, facts (Ariz.Ct. Indiana, the re checks appli these with sup ju who has not with the to be that the ICPC been been be traumatic and could Father fact that mother and lack port tion. in a safe environment. months greater established a bond and bond with thus court to suddenly send murdered completed making gradual to For the reasons The facts noted earlier, harm. consider and under juvenile court’s it participated was her transition Child, applies these to Minnesota with Father I ensure that proper agree bond with regarding godmother process whose Mother had circumstances sibling’s to part Child above, herein, to for the conclusion. its. her life would Father rely upon had not Father, cause Child Child’s determina I father conclude together juvenile juvenile Child is grand needs with sup two age yet To placement. The case notes, further For the foregoing reasons, I would say juvenile “this is affirm the decision parent that the court. be unfit; rather, presumed she investigated ensure would be safe if placed that, ICPC,
parent,” and without agency authori legal “would lack the ty arrange services another state MEMORY MANAGEMENT GARDENS it patently impractical and would be ... INC., CORPORATION, Appellan [agency], require an caseworker travel t -Plaintif state to investigate propri another f, v. ety of a placement” and “[t]he best EQUITY LLC, PARTNERS, LIBERTY safeguards a by requiring child’s welfare Bridge Home, and Old Funeral investigate state to moni LLC, Appellees-Defendants. tor placement”); Benway, see also (noting that, So.2d at 439 a court “[o]nce No. 49A02-1501-CC-1. legal custody of a would be of Appeals Court of Indiana. negligent relinquish that child to out- Sept. parent
of-state without indication some parent that the for the child able care
appropriately” provides “[t]he