Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A father who lost custody of his children failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that the trial court erred by granting custody to the children’s grandmother.
A.M.J. and A.L.J. are the sons of father S.J. and mother A.G.
A.G. was awarded custody in 2014, but she died in 2016, so the children began living with their maternal grandmother, L.G., while S.J. was incarcerated or on home detention.
The children eventually began living with their father, but the Department of Child Services received reports that he was abusing alcohol and drugs and was physically abusive.
In March 2022, DCS removed the children from S.J. and placed them back with L.G. The department also filed a petition alleging they were children in need of services.
The children remained with their grandmother throughout the CHINS proceedings. S.J. was originally ordered to have supervised visits with the children, but the Allen Superior Court later ordered that those visits be “therapeutic[ally] supervised.”
In June 2022, the trial court adjudicated the children to be CHINS.
In its dispositional order, the trial court ordered S.J. to “(1) refrain from criminal activity and ‘physical discipline’ of the Children; (2) refrain from the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, and other substance abuse; (3) complete substance abuse treatment recommendations and submit to random drug screening; (4) complete a drug and alcohol counseling program, family counseling program, and home based services program, including ‘parenting, discipline, developmental stages, coping skills, and stress management without substance use’; (5) submit to a diagnostic assessment to ‘identify and recommend reunification/preservation services’ and follow those recommendations; (6) cooperate with DCS caseworkers and the guardian ad litem (‘GAL’); and (7) attend and ‘appropriately participate’ in all visits with the Children.”
S.J. appealed the CHINS adjudication, but the COA affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
In March 2023, the permanency plan changed from the concurrent plan of reunification with S.J. or the granting of custody to maternal grandmother, to only the granting of custody to maternal grandmother.
DCS filed a motion for permanency and joinder in April 2023, in which it sought to join L.G. as a party to the CHINS proceedings and to modify custody in her favor. The trial court held a hearing on that motion in June 2023.
At the hearing, S.J.’s caseworker testified that S.J. had not started the court-ordered individual counseling services, was disruptive during group substance abuse treatment, and was unsuccessfully discharged from an individual substance abuse treatment program because he was making only “minimal progress.” He had also refused several drug screens, and while he had a few negative drug screens, he had tested positive for THC and cocaine during the previous few months.
The therapist who led S.J.’s therapeutically supervised visits with the children also testified that she was concerned with S.J.’s anger management.
In August 2023, the trial court issued its order joining maternal grandmother in the proceedings, granting custody of the children to her and terminating DCS’s wardship over the children.
S.J. appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody in favor of L.G.
But the Court of Appeals disagreed.
“Although Father was participating in the Fatherhood Engagement program, he had not completed any of the other required services,” Judge Elizabeth Tavitas wrote. “Father had also not demonstrated meaningful progress on his substance abuse treatment. Finally, Father and the Children had engaged in therapeutically supervised visits for over one year, yet the therapist was unable to predict when visits would progress to supervised, let alone unsupervised, visits.
“Based on these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court erred by finding that the natural-parent presumption was overcome, that a significant change occurred, and that modifying custody in favor of Maternal Grandmother was in the Children’s best interests,” Tavitas concluded. “Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying custody.”
Judges Paul Mathias and Leanna Weissmann concurred in In the Matter of A.M.J. and A.L.J., Minor Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services; S.J. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 23A-JC-2241.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.