In the Matter of: E.W. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services J.W. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent,
The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
Appeal from the Jennings Circuit Court. The Honorable Jon W. Webster, Judge. Cause No. 40C01-0908-JC-244.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Jennifer A. Joas, Joas & Stotts, Madison, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Robert J. Henke, Abigail R. Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Baker, Judge. May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
[¶1] J.W. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating visits and phone contact with her child, E.W. (Child). Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court's order. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm.
[¶2] On August 18, 2009, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a Child in Need of Services (CHINS). The petition alleged that then ten-year-old Child was having sex with her boyfriend and that Mother had frequently " checked" Child's " privates" to see if she was engaging in sexual intercourse. Appellant's App. p. 21. Eventually, both Mother and Child's father admitted that Child was a CHINS.
[¶3] Initially, Child remained in Mother's care. Child was removed from Mother's care and placed in the Columbus Behavioral Facility between June and October 2010. Upon being released from the facility, Child returned to Mother's care. Child was again removed from Mother's care and placed in a facility and in foster care between January and April 2011 because Mother's home failed to meet minimal standards and Mother was not following Child's medication regimen.
[¶4] Child was returned to Mother's care in April 2011 but was again removed in June 2011. Child was removed on this occasion because Mother failed to adequately supervise Child and because Child had been raped. A medical examination confirmed that Child had tearing, bruising, and blood in her vaginal area. Child has not been returned to Mother's care since June 2011.
[¶5] Mother and Child had supervised visits after the June 2011 removal. The visitation supervisor reported that about half of these visits were detrimental to Child because of Mother's inappropriate comments and behaviors. For example, Mother made inappropriate sexual comments. At one point, Mother asked the Family Case Manager (FCM) about providing sex toys to Child. Child reported that at one visit, Mother had grabbed her breast to see if she was sexually active. The visitation supervisor further testified that he had seen no improvement in Mother's parenting skills in the ten months he had supervised the visits. Mother testified that she did not " see anything wrong really with what [she is] doing." Tr. p. 74. Mother has been unwilling to participate in court-ordered services that are designed to improve her parenting skills and her mental health.
[¶6] Mother undermined Child's foster parents in multiple ways. On one occasion, Child accepted the sexual advances of a boy and then bragged about it at school. Her foster father required her to write 500 sentences as a consequence and told her she was not allowed to have a relationship with the boy. ...