Mathias, J.
The Warren Circuit Court terminated S.K.’s (“Father”) parental rights to his three minor children, and Father appeals. He raises three issues, which we restate as:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the children’s therapist to testify concerning statements made by the children;
II. Whether the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) proved that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the children and Father; and
III. Whether the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
We affirm.
….
First, Father argues that the trial court erred when it admitted the children’s therapist’s testimony concerning statements the children made to the therapist. The only statements that Father specifically objected to at the fact-finding hearing and in his brief are statements the therapist made concerning whether the children were aware that Father killed their mother and whether they understood that they could visit Father. Appellant’s Br. at 26–27.
….
We apply a two-step analysis for admission under Rule 803(4): “First, ‘is the declarant motivated to provide truthful information in order to promote diagnosis and treatment,’ and second, ‘is the content of the statement such that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on it in rendering diagnosis or treatment.’” Id. (quoting McClain v. State, 675 N.E.2d 329, 331 (Ind. 1996)). “[T]he declarant must subjectively believe that he was making the statement for the purpose of receiving medical diagnosis or treatment.” Id…
The children’s therapist testified to her opinions concerning the children’s mental state based on conversations she had with the children on the day Father killed their mother and statements made during therapy. The initial conversations between the therapist and the children were not for the purpose of therapy, but simply to help the children process their feelings and provide them with support. Tr. p. 116. We agree that, when they initially interacted with the therapist, the children likely did not understand that they were making statements to the therapist for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
However, “[t]he improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the judgment is supported by substantial independent evidence to satisfy the reviewing court that there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the judgment.”…
The children’s therapist’s testimony concerning the children’s fear of and anger with Father was based primarily on her observations of the children and the statements made to her during therapy. See Tr. pp. 102–20. The children’s therapist also testified concerning her treatment plan and the goals she and the children are working on in therapy. Id. This testimony did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. And to the extent that the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay statements, such error is harmless under the facts and circumstances of this case.
….
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.