Appellate court affirms TPR case involving drug abuse

A mother struggling with drug abuse did not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday that her parental rights for her two sons should not be terminated.

In the matter of In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.C. and R.C. (Minor Children) and B.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc., 19A-JT-350, brothers J.C. and R.C. were removed from their mother’s care and adjudicated as children in need of services after she was found unresponsive in her home after overdosing on illicit drugs.

Although she was ordered to participate in a variety of services and was initially compliant, B.C. began to drift and relapsed. She was later arrested on a warrant after failing to appear in court for drug-related convictions, and the Indiana Department of Child Services filed petitions to terminate her parental rights to the boys.

B.C. appealed the issued termination order issued in Marion Superior Court, arguing the trial court erred in its denial of her motion to dismiss the termination of parental rights petition because the hearing was not completed within 180 days of the petition’s filing. Since petitions for both J.C. and R.C. should have been completed no later than Sept. 11 and Sept. 24 respectively, but were not completed until November 26, the appellate court noted B.C.’s argument at first blush appeared to have merit.

“But Mother’s argument overlooks the fact that she failed to object to any delay in the hearings,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the panel.

It noted that the trial court held a pretrial hearing after the 90-day deadline in R.C.’s case and on the last day of the 90-day deadline in J.C.’s case. B.C., the appellate court observed, had never objected to the setting of those dates, which were outside both limits set forth in Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6.

“At the pre-trial hearing where the trial court set the evidentiary hearings for dates beyond the statutory time limits, Mother not only did not object, but she affirmatively waived the 180-day time limit,” Mathias wrote. “Moreover, Mother did not move to dismiss until the third day of the hearing. Accordingly, she cannot claim on appeal that the trial court erred by setting the hearings for dates beyond the statutory time limit.

“To permit Mother, after having affirmatively waived the 180-day deadline, to seek dismissal based on the trial court’s failure to complete the hearing within 180 days would effectively allow her to ‘sandbag’ the trial court,” the panel concluded. “This would allow a parent to take advantage of invited error.”

Upon its conclusion that the trial court’s failure to hold and complete evidentiary hearings within the statutory timeframe did not constitute reversible error, the appellate court also found the evidence establishing B.C.’s repeated substance abuse to be overwhelming. Thus, the admission of B.C.’s positive drug screens did not impair her substantial rights.

Lastly, the appellate court found that B.C.’s inability to successfully address her substance abuse problem supported the trial court’s conclusion that a reasonable probability existed that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal would not be remedied, and that it was in their best interests for B.C.’s parental rights to be terminated.

Judge Rudolph Pyle III concurred in a separate opinion, noting that he believed the admission of B.C.’s drug test results was not erroneous. Instead, Pyle would find that the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits 17- 20 into evidence under the business records exception.