In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.C. (Minor Child) S.I. (Mother) and K.C. (Father), Appellants-Respondents v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.I. (Mother) and K.C. (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal the termination of their parental rights as to their youngest child M.C. (Child). Although the termination came only 17 months after Child's birth, it followed more than a decade of Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) involvement with Parents due to their illicit drug use and unremedied domestic violence around Mother's four other children. The trial court concluded there was a reasonable probability that those conditions would not be remedied and that terminating Parents’ parental rights was in Child's best interests. Parents solely challenge the latter conclusion. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Mother's history with DCS dates back 15 years and includes seven cases in which one or more of her five children have been deemed in need of services (CHINS). Father is the biological father of three of those children: A.C. (age 10); G.C. (age 8); and Child (nearly age 2). The other two, D.R. (age 16) and J.I. (age 4), each have a different father.

[3] Domestic violence and illicit drug use have been recurring themes in all the children's CHINS cases. The first case began in 2010 after Mother was criminally charged for striking and biting D.R.’s father in front of D.R. In the second case, which began in 2014, Parents admitted to filling their home with marijuana smoke from an oven when A.C. was an infant. Both cases closed after the receipt of unspecified services.

[4] The third CHINS case began in 2016 when G.C.’s umbilical cord blood tested positive for THC at birth. Though DCS and Parents initially agreed to an informal adjustment, DCS removed A.C. and G.C. from Parents’ care after Mother reported that two incidents of domestic violence had occurred in the children's presence. According to Mother, Father twice slapped her in the face on one occasion and choked her and pulled her hair on another. The third case closed in 2018 despite DCS's objection that Parents were only minimally compliant with services.

[5] The fourth CHINS case began in 2018, only a month after the third case closed. Father was arrested for violating a no contact order by entering Mother's home and briefly abducting G.C. from a babysitter. At the time of Father's arrest, Mother showed both new and old bruising on her arms. She later testified to at least five separate incidents of domestic violence by Father since the closure of the third CHINS case. The fourth case ultimately closed in 2020 with the termination of Parents’ parental rights as to both A.C. and G.C.

[6] The fifth CHINS case began in 2018 and again involved D.R. It was based, in part, on Father's presence in Mother's home despite a no contact order. D.R. was also present at the time. This case closed in 2019 with the trial court awarding physical custody of D.R. to her biological father.

[7] The sixth CHINS case began in 2020, shortly after the birth of J.I. Mother admitted that J.I. was a CHINS because she continued to use marijuana and had allowed Father to be in her home and around J.I. despite his history of domestic violence. The sixth case closed in 2021 “through a permanency plan of guardianship.” App. Vol. II, p. 69.

[8] The seventh CHINS case underlies this termination matter. DCS became involved with Child in August 2020 after his umbilical cord blood tested positive for THC at birth. Concerned with Mother's drug use and Father's history of domestic violence, among other things, DCS removed Child from Parents’ care, placed him with a relative, and filed a petition alleging Child was a CHINS.

[9] Child was adjudicated a CHINS in October 2022. In its fact-finding order, the trial court found, in pertinent part:

• “Mother and Father have an extensive history of domestic violence between them.”

• “Father has convictions of domestic battery with Mother as the victim.”

• There have been several No-Contact Orders between the parents. The parents have violated these No-Contact Orders. The Parents violated a No-Contact Order when the child was conceived. Mother has taken extensive steps to have prior No-Contact Orders dismissed.

• “The parents admitted to smoking marijuana. Mother admitted to FCM Miller that she smoked marijuana five times per week.”

• “Mother tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine on [three dates in September 2022].”

• “Father tested positive for methamphetamine on September 7, 2022.”

• “The parents have been offered services but declined services. The parents advised [DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Alyssa] Burch that they were engaging in services on their own, but no evidence was presented that this was actually happening and the parents declined signing releases for DCS to be able to obtain this information.”

Exhs. Vol. III, p. 221.

[10] After a dispositional hearing in November 2022, the trial court issued a decree requiring, among other things, that Parents abstain from using illicit drugs, submit to random drug screens, and participate in reunification services. The court also ordered Parents to undergo domestic violence and substance abuse assessments and to follow all recommendations.

[11] At a review hearing in January 2023, the trial court found that Mother was not engaging in services. And though Father had completed an inpatient drug treatment program, he advised the court that he did not intend to engage in any follow-up services. When Parents’ noncompliance continued into June 2023, the court added adoption as a concurrent permanency plan for Child.

[12] Parents failed to appear for a second review hearing in July 2023, and the next month, DCS petitioned to terminate Parent's parental rights as to Child. At a December 2023 termination hearing, both FCM Burch and Child's Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), Jan Evans, testified that termination of Parents’ parental rights, followed by Child's adoption by his kinship placement, was in Child's best interests.

[13] After the hearing, the trial court issued a 32-page order terminating Parents’ parental rights as to Child. The termination order included the following factual findings as to Parents’ illicit drug use:

• “Father and Mother have both had positive methamphetamine screens during the CHINS case.” App. Vol. II, p. 88.

• “[Mother] admitted she continued to use methamphetamine during the time the CHINS case was pending.” Id. at 87.

• “[Mother] stated her last use of methamphetamine was approximately a week before the trial.” Id. at 88.

• “Mother told [a] service provider ․ that she and Father are actively using methamphetamine and have methods to provide clean screens through the purchase of urine.” Id.

[14] The termination order also included the following factual findings as to Father's history of domestic violence against Mother:

• “Father has a long and violent criminal history, several of his criminal charges being domestic violence against Mother.” Id. at 72.

• “Mother specifically admitted at trial that during the parents eleven-and-a-half-year relationship, domestic violence has been occurring “off and on” for most of the relationship.” Id. at 74.

• “Mother reported to two service providers ․ that domestic violence is ongoing in the relationship, the Court finds these disclosures credible and specifically finds that the department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that domestic violence continues to occur in the home.” Id.

• “FCM Burch witnesses an episode of domestic violence in April of 2023 while parents were at the Putnam County DCS office for a visit at which [Father] was yelling at [Mother] and appeared to be leaning into the vehicle where [Mother] was sitting. Police were called and [Father] was removed from DCS property, however, he returned and ultimately left with [Mother] that day.” Id. at 86.

• On April 25, 2023, Mother reported to Putnam County Sheriff's Deputy Kyle Lee that “an argument occurred between herself and [Father] regarding a messy bedroom which escalated into a physical altercation. [Mother] stated [Father] pulled her hair, struck her, and hit her with a toaster.” Id. at 74.

[15] Additionally, the termination order included the following factual findings as to Parents’ engagement in services during the CHINS case:

• “[DCS] has made diligent efforts to engage both [Mother] and [Father] to get them to engage in services to address the underlying reasons for the Child's removal.” Id. at 86.

• “[Mother] and [Father] have been inconsistent in their participation with offered services, but have most often been uninvolved in services.” Id.

• “[Mother] stated she believed she and [Father] need couples counseling to address the domestic violence in their relationship which could get progressively worse and result in her death, but she has not taken any steps to obtain couples counseling outside of DCS. The Court does not find [Mother] credible in [stating] that she has not had opportunity to receive appropriate counseling through DCS[;] DCS has provided [Mother] with multiple services over multiple years.” Id. at 87-88.

• “Father admitted he did not engage in the follow up treatment recommended to address his substance use.” Id. at 88.

• “Father has not engaged in services to address his mental health or domestic violence.” Id.

[16] Ultimately, the trial the court concluded there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in Child's removal would not be remedied, that continuation of the parent-child relationships posed a threat to Child's well-being, and that terminating Parents’ parental rights was in Child's best interests.

Discussion and Decision

[17] Parents jointly appeal the termination of their parental rights as to Child. When seeking a termination of parental rights, DCS has the burden of both alleging and proving:

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the child.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of services;

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and

(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2023). If the trial court finds the allegations proven by clear and convincing evidence, it shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code §§ 31-35-2-8, -37-14-2 (2023).

[18] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we generally apply a three-tiered standard of review. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact. Id. Second, we determine whether those findings support the court's conclusions of law. And third, we determine whether those conclusions support the court's ultimate judgment. Id.

[19] Here, however, Parents concede that the evidence supports the trial the court's factual findings. See generally Matter of De.B., 144 N.E.3d 763, 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (“Any unchallenged findings stand as proven.”). Additionally, Parents do not contest the trial court's conclusions that the conditions resulting in Child's removal were not reasonably likely to be remedied or that continuation of the parent-child relationships posed a threat to Child's well-being. Parents only challenge the court's conclusion that termination was in Child's best interests.

[20] In determining the best interests of a child, “trial courts must look at the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, subordinate the parents’ interests to those of the child[ ].” Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019). Here, FCM Burch and CASA Evans both testified in support of terminating Parents’ parental rights as to Child. And Parents do not challenge the trial court's conclusion that the conditions resulting in Child's removal—domestic violence and illicit drug use—are not likely to be remedied. These two facts alone are often sufficient to support a trial court's conclusion that termination was in a child's best interests. See, e.g., A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). But the totality of the evidence underscores that conclusion in this case.

[21] “A parent's historical inability to provide a suitable environment along with the parent's current inability to do so supports finding termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.” Matter of G.M., 71 N.E.3d 898, 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Here, Parents’ history of domestic violence and illicit drug use spans more than a decade and has resulted in repeated DCS interventions. Despite DCS's diligent efforts to provide Parents with services aimed at remedying these recurring issues, Parents have shown little to no improvement. “The court need not wait until the child[ is] irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship.” A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158.

[22] Parents essentially argue that they were not given enough time to successfully complete the services ordered in Child's CHINS case. But Parents had ample opportunities to complete the same or similar services in prior CHINS cases, and the results were always the same. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

[23] Affirmed.

Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann

Judges Vaidik and Foley concur. Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.