IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Ja.T. and J.J.T. (Minor Children); (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In this consolidated appeal, J.T. (“Mother”) and M.O. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the termination of their parental rights to their twin children (“the Children”). Parents argue the trial court's finding of a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of Parents will not be remedied is clearly erroneous. Mother also argues that the trial court's finding that termination of parental rights is in the Children's best interests is clearly erroneous. We conclude that the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[2] Parents raise three issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court's findings regarding Mother are clearly erroneous.

II. Whether the trial court's finding of a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of Parents will not be remedied is clearly erroneous.

III. Whether the trial court's finding that termination of parental rights is in the Children's best interests is clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] The Children are twins born in December 2018 to Parents when Mother ¹ was seventeen years old and Father was twenty-three years old. At the time, Father had a criminal history of violence against others and possession of marijuana. In 2016, Father pleaded guilty to battery committed against his mother. In 2017, Father pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. In 2018, Father pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. In 2019, the State charged Father with domestic battery for a battery committed against his brother, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. Father pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

[4] In October 2019, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that the Children had been physically abused. A DCS assessment family case manager (“FCM”) met with Parents and the Children at a hotel in Plainfield. Both Children had what appeared to be patterned burn marks—one child on his leg, and one child on his armpit. At Riley Children's Hospital, the marks were diagnosed to be burns, and Mother later stated that the burns might have been caused by a “blow torch ․ used to smoke marijuana.” Tr. Vol. III p. 90. Both Parents tested positive for marijuana; and DCS removed the Children from Parents’ care and placed them with maternal grandmother. DCS then received subsequent reports alleging substance abuse and domestic violence between Parents.

[5] On October 9, 2019, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”). In January 2020, Parents admitted that they both have substance abuse issues that interfere with their ability to care for the Children. The trial court then found that the Children were CHINS. The trial court entered a dispositional decree in February 2020, which ordered Parents to, in part: avoid the consumption of illegal substances; obey the law; complete a parenting assessment and successfully complete any recommendations; complete a substance abuse assessment and successfully complete any treatment recommendations; submit to random drug screens; not commit any acts of domestic violence; successfully complete a domestic violence assessment program; and attend supervised visitations with the Children.

[6] Father visited with the Children but otherwise failed to participate in services. Additionally, in December 2019, the State charged Father with domestic battery, a Level 6 felony; and domestic battery, a Level 5 felony, for a battery committed against his mother. Father pleaded guilty to domestic battery, a Level 6 felony, and was sentenced to 365 days in jail with 361 days suspended to probation.

[7] Although Mother complied with some services, she continued to struggle with substance abuse, missed drug screens, and consistently tested positive for THC. DCS required Mother to have negative drug tests for thirty days in order to decrease the level of supervised visits, and Mother struggled to meet this requirement. Further, in October 2020, the State charged Mother with carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Mother was sentenced to 365 days in jail with 361 days suspended to probation. Mother, however, later violated her probation and was ordered to serve the 361 days on home detention.

[8] Mother engaged in individual therapy with a goal of improving functioning and processing past trauma. Mother, however, became “very irate” with the therapist. Tr. Vol. III p. 10. Mother was “always in the middle of a crisis,” unable to focus, stressed, and overwhelmed. Id. at 11. The therapist was concerned with Mother's ability to parent children due to her erratic behavior and anger management problems. DCS referred Mother to receive medications to manage her mental health, but the facility required negative drug screens to begin the medications. The referral was eventually closed unsuccessfully.

[9] In January 2021, DCS filed its first petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights. Mother continued to test positive for THC and tested positive for methamphetamine in March 2021. Father, however, began to participate in services and made significant progress. Father completed substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, and home-based casework. Father progressed to unsupervised visitation with the Children. In May 2021, DCS dismissed the first petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights as a result of Father's progress.

[10] The day after the petition was dismissed, however, there was a domestic violence incident between Father and Mother in the presence of the Children. At the time, Mother's visitations with the Children were supervised, and she was not authorized to be in the presence of the Children without supervision. DCS learned of the domestic violence incidents between Father and Mother, and Mother entered a women's shelter.

[11] In July 2021, DCS discovered that maternal grandmother was allowing Mother and Father to “co-parent[ ]” the Children in her home, which was contrary to the orders for Mother and Father to have supervised parenting time. Ex. Vol. VIII p. 6. DCS removed the Children from maternal grandmother's care and placed the Children in foster care.

[12] In August 2021, DCS filed a second petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights. Father's engagement in services then decreased significantly, and he asked DCS to retrieve the Children's belongings in September 2021. Father told the case worker, “I haven't seen them in 2 months and I'm fine.” Tr. Vol. III p. 120. Father contacted DCS in early 2022 and asked what would happen if he left Indiana. In February 2022, the State charged Father with two counts of aggravated battery, Level 3 felonies, and two counts of battery with a deadly weapon, Level 5 felonies. Father was later arrested in Kentucky. Father ultimately pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony, and was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) with six years suspended to probation and three years of home detention as a condition of probation. Father's earliest possible release date would be in December 2024. Father has participated in some virtual visits with the Children and has participated in some services while incarcerated.

[13] Father's engagement in services decreased after the filing of the second petition for termination of parental rights, but Mother's engagement increased, and she was making progress at the women's shelter. Although Mother continued to test positive for THC and miss drug screens, she was employed, engaged in counseling, completed domestic violence education, and had housing and transportation. As a result, DCS dismissed the second petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights in January 2022.

[14] Mother progressed to “pop-in[ ]” supervision at visits in May 2022. Id. at 16. At some point, Mother began a relationship with a man (“Boyfriend”), and Mother requested that Boyfriend be allowed to participate in visitations. Boyfriend, however, tested positive for THC and cocaine, indicated that he would not stop using illegal substances, and refused to participate in any DCS services. Accordingly, Boyfriend was not approved to be involved in visits with the Children. Despite Boyfriend's lack of approval to participate, Boyfriend appeared during a visit with the Children at a bowling alley in August 2022, and Mother's visits with the Children were returned to supervised status due to the violation.

[15] In September 2022, the State charged Mother with theft, a Class A misdemeanor, and in October 2022, Boyfriend appeared at the park during Mother's visit with the Children. There was a physical altercation between Boyfriend and Mother, which was witnessed by the Children. After the altercation, Mother had a gash on her head and her glasses were broken. DCS then recommended that Mother's visits with the Children occur in a secure facility. Although DCS discussed the relationship and domestic violence with Mother, a few days later, Mother informed DCS that she was engaged to Boyfriend.

[16] On October 24, 2022, DCS filed its third petition for termination of Parents’ parental rights. Mother then began missing multiple drug screens and testing positive for THC again. Mother admitted to using marijuana as a coping mechanism. DCS referred Mother for a psychological evaluation.

[17] In November 2022, Dr. Sarah Szerlong performed the psychological evaluation and diagnosed Mother with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), bipolar II disorder, and a “provisional diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.” Tr. Vol. II p. 27. During the evaluation, Mother reported a history of self-harm and two suicide attempts. Mother's “distress [was] high” Id. at 48. Dr. Szerlong recommended medication management, therapeutic services, individual and group therapy, and parenting education. Dr. Szerlong further recommended that Mother refrain from the use of illegal substances and CBD while Mother was “trying to stabilize [her] mood or other symptoms through prescribed medication routes.” Id. at 31. Dr. Szerlong recommended that Mother participate in dialectal behavioral therapy (“DBT”), which is recommended for borderline personality disorder.

[18] A home-based case manager working with Mother from November 2022 to February 2023 reported that January 2023 was “rocky.” Id. at 61. At one appointment in January, Mother smelled “heavily of marijuana,” and Mother was “yelling” and “cussing” about the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) and the family case manager. Id. at 62. Mother reported that she was arguing with Boyfriend, used illicit substances with Boyfriend, and suffered a miscarriage. At some point, Mother was asked to leave the women's shelter and moved into Boyfriend's apartment. In February 2023, however, Mother moved out of Boyfriend's apartment and moved in with her mother. Mother and Boyfriend eventually broke up in approximately July 2023.

[19] In March 2023, shortly before the first scheduled hearing on the petition for termination of Parents’ parental rights, Mother began cooperating with services. Mother secured housing and employment and started participating in substance abuse treatment. Mother reported that she has been sober since March 2023. Mother completed twenty-four group sessions of intensive outpatient treatment (“IOT”) and participated in the aftercare program. Mother, however, tested positive for THC again on May 31, 2023, and was returned to IOT. Mother has not fully completed the IOT program. Mother claims that she tested positive because of her use of legal CBD products.² Mother does not see anything wrong with using legal CBD even though she is aware that CBD usage poses a barrier to progressing in this case.

[20] Mother has participated in weekly therapy with Debra Taylor, a therapist for the Behavioral Center, since April 2023. Taylor worked with Mother on DBT therapy to address emotional dysregulation and behavioral issues. Mother had ongoing significant emotional swings and outbursts. According to Taylor, due to Mother's childhood trauma and childhood instability, Mother's “normal” is to “exist in chaos and dysfunctional relationships.” Tr. Vol. III p. 42. Mother needs chaos “in order for her to function,” and she “doesn't do well when things are calm.” Id. at 47. Mother is focused on “whatever immediate trauma is causing her issues in that moment,” resulting in difficulty moving forward. Id. at 43.

[21] Taylor reported that Mother does not talk about the Children often. On one occasion, when Mother viewed Taylor's notes, Mother was “highly upset” and texted Taylor “excessively.” Id. at 45. Further, Mother does not “understand [ ] how substance abuse applies to this case.” Id. at 48. Mother had a “huge emotional reaction” when confronted with a failed drug test. Id. at 46. Mother told Taylor that, after the DCS case was closed, she planned to move to a State where marijuana is legal and use marijuana to treat her mental health disorders.

[22] According to Taylor, although Mother is making progress applying skills when she is triggered, Mother often defaults back to “being a victim,” emotional dysregulation, and putting her needs above those of the Children. Id. at 49. Mother's severe mood swings are consistent with her bipolar diagnosis. Mother's attraction to relationships that end in domestic violence is consistent with borderline personality disorder, which will require a lifetime of therapy and medication management.

[23] Mother also started treatment for ADHD in June 2023. After starting the treatment, her thought processes seemed “more clear” and “organized,” and her mood stabilized significantly. Tr. Vol. III p. 236. Mother, however, then stopped treatment with Taylor and started treatment with Rebekah Johnson at Eskenazi Mental Health Center in August 2023. Johnson, however, was not yet trained to do DBT therapy, which Mother needs.

[24] The trial court held fact-finding hearings on April 13, July 18, July 19, August 29, September 13 and October 6, 2023. On December 28, 2023, the trial court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions thereon terminating Parents’ parental rights to the Children. Parents now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[25] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional rights of parents to establish a home and raise their children. In re K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). “[A] parent's interest in the upbringing of [his or her] child is ‘perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e] [c]ourt[s].’ ” Id. (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000)). We recognize that parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child's best interests when determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. Id.; see also In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019) (“Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children—but this right is not absolute.”). “When parents are unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities, their parental rights may be terminated.” Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 45-46.

[26] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(c), the trial court “shall enter findings of fact that support the entry of the conclusions required by subsections (a) and (b)” when granting a petition to terminate parental rights.³ Here, the trial court did enter findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting DCS's petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights. We affirm a trial court's termination of parental rights decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 45. A termination of parental rights decision is clearly erroneous when the trial court's findings of fact do not support its legal conclusions, or when the legal conclusions do not support the ultimate decision. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Id.

[27] Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(a) provides that “if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in [Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4] are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)⁴ provides that a petition to terminate a parent-child relationship involving a child in need of services must allege, in part:

(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.

DCS must establish these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 (Ind. 2016).

I. The trial court's findings regarding Mother are not clearly erroneous.

[28] Mother argues that several of the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Mother first challenges Finding No. 305, which provides: “Mother is not yet in a mental state where she can provide the calm and consistent home that the Children will need for their well-being, given their own complex trauma.” Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. II p. 69. Mother argues that she has consistently addressed her mental health needs and that she has demonstrated strong parenting skills. Mother, however, has a history of engaging in relationships that involve domestic violence; a history of mental health issues, which will require on-going, long-term care; and a history of substance abuse. Although the Children were removed in October 2019, Mother's progress in remedying these issues has been inconsistent and sporadic. Mother began making progress only shortly before the fact-finding hearings for this matter—more than three years after the Children were removed. Mother's challenge to this finding is merely a request that we weigh Mother's recent progress more heavily than her historical patterns of behavior, but we cannot reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, this finding is not clearly erroneous.

[29] Next, Mother challenges Finding No. 312 and Finding No. 315, which concern her drug screens. Finding No. 312 provides:

Between March 5, 2023 and July 9, 2023, Mother failed to call the Cordant screening line 48 times. Nine of those 48 screens would have required Mother to report for a drug test. In that same time period, Mother did complete 18 screens, with one of those screens still being completed by Mother even though she failed to call the screening line that same day. Mother went ahead and went to a drug testing site and the screen was negative. Mother had seven other negative screens in this time period. Mother had two positive screens through Cordant. The first positive screen was for cannabis/THC on March 8, 2023 at a level indicative of active marijuana use. The second positive drug screen was collected on May 31, 2023 and also positive for cannabis/THC but at levels more consistent with Delta 9 use.

Id. at 70. Finding No. 315 provides:

The Court does expect DCS to give some leniency in making up missed drug screens for what would be unexpected events in a day. However, Mother's missed calls to Cordant are excessive and go well beyond an unexpected event. For this reason along with Mother's history of poor engagement in substance treatment, the Court does not find DCS's requirements for what must be met for in home visits to be excessive or unreasonable.

Id.

[30] Mother argues that she consistently engaged in drug treatment and stopped using marijuana in March 2023. DCS presented evidence that, despite years of random drug screens and available substance abuse treatment, Mother still repeatedly failed to call the drug screening line as required and missed drug screens. Further, although Mother was aware that CBD use could impact this matter, Mother continued to use CBD, which resulted in positive drug screens for THC. Again, Mother asks that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous.

[31] Mother also challenges Finding No. 317, which provides:

Mother has actually had a plan for reunification for some time; she just has not liked the plan. There was an established plan for commencing visits in Mother's home. As noted above Mother was first expected to have 30 days of negative drug screens. Mother clearly understood the plan and further understood that even low levels of THC, presumably from CBD products, along with missed drug screens would be considered positive drug screens by DCS. The Court considers the plan for in home visits to be one of the incremental steps before a trial home visit and reunification. Had Mother achieved this first step with successful in home visits, she would have been well placed to next seek overnight visitations followed by a trial home visit. DCS cannot be faulted for not planning beyond in home visits when Mother had not yet attained this requirement.

Id. Mother does not challenge the accuracy of this finding; rather, she argues that DCS's screening procedures along with other requirements were unreasonable. Even after more than three years of drug screens, Mother struggled to call the drug screening line, participate in random drug screens along with other services, and stop using CBD products. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court's finding is clearly erroneous.

[32] Finally, Mother challenges Finding No. 318, which provides:

Mother believes there are two opposing camps as to permanency. One group of providers supports moving forward with reunification with Mother while another group, including FCM Hannon, CASA, and some of the DCS referred providers, supports a permanency plan of adoption with termination of parental rights. Mother has been troubled that despite positive reports from some of the recent providers, FCM Hannon and CASA do not credit Mother with making progress or change. Mother believes the FCM and CASA can no longer be objective in the case. Mother has sought to have the CHINS cases transferred to Marion County, in part, to have a fresh perspective. The Court is not persuaded that there is a loss of objectivity. There are too many variables amongst the providers and the nature of their work, including the complexity of their particular treatment or case plan goals, which can also account for why some providers have had a good working relationship with Mother and while others have found it challenging to work with Mother. In addition, it remains important to understand the history of the CHINS cases both as to parents but also the Children when evaluating progress. Not every recent service provider has been provided those important details. With Mother securing services on her own, which she had every right to do, it has created a disjointed treatment team. The Court is left with the impression that there is not a unified treatment team where all providers are giving updates, input and available to participate in Child and Family Team meetings.

Id. at 70-71. Mother argues that some of the DCS employees and service providers were not objective and supported termination of her parental rights, while other service providers supported Mother. Again, Mother merely asks that we reweigh the evidence. Although Mother had a good working relationship with some providers, Mother had a poor relationship with other providers. We cannot say the trial court's finding is clearly erroneous.

II. The trial court's finding of a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of Parents will not be remedied is not clearly erroneous.

[33] Parents both challenge the trial court's conclusion that there is “a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the [Children's] removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.”⁵ I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i). “In determining whether ‘the conditions that resulted in the [Children's] removal ․ will not be remedied,’ we ‘engage in a two-step analysis.’ ” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642-43 (Ind. 2014) (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). “First, we identify the conditions that led to removal; and second, we ‘determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.’ ” Id. at 643 (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). In analyzing this second step, the trial court judges the parent's fitness “ ‘as of the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions.’ ” Id. (quoting Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. and Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 152 (Ind. 2005)). “We entrust that delicate balance to the trial court, which has discretion to weigh a parent's prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination.” Id. “Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions does not preclude them from finding that parents’ past behavior is the best predictor of their future behavior.” Id.

A. Father's Arguments

[34] Here, the Children were initially removed from Parents’ care due to burns they sustained while in Parents’ care and concerns regarding the Parents’ substance abuse and domestic violence. Father argues that the safety concerns present when the CHINS petition was filed are no longer present because Father successfully participated in substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, home-based casework, drug screening, and has attempted to improve himself while incarcerated.

[35] DCS, however, presented evidence that Father has a significant and repeated history of violence toward others, especially toward family members. Although Father made progress in 2021, DCS discovered that Father and Mother engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the Children. After the Children were placed in foster care, Father stopped visiting the Children and participating in services. Even after participating in domestic violence services, Father was convicted of aggravated battery and remains incarcerated. Although Father has participated in some virtual visits with the Children while Father is incarcerated and other services if available, Father's earliest release date is December 2024. Given Father's pattern of aggressive, violent behavior and substance abuse, the trial court's finding that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal will not be remedied is not clearly erroneous.

B. Mother's Arguments

[36] Mother argues that she remedied the conditions that resulted in the removal of the Children. According to Mother, at the time of the fact-finding hearings, she was no longer in a relationship involving domestic violence; engaged in mental health treatment; had been sober since March 2023; and had employment and housing. Mother argues that she has shown “substantial and consistent progress” since DCS became involved. Mother's Appellant's Br. p. 39.

[37] Here, although the Children were removed from Mother's care in October 2019, Mother's progress over the next four years was sporadic and inconsistent. The FCM noted significant inconsistencies in Mother's compliance during the past four years. Mother and Father continued to engage in a relationship marred by domestic violence. Even after Mother went to a women's shelter, ended the relationship with Father, and engaged in a domestic violence program, Mother began a relationship with Boyfriend. That relationship was also fraught with domestic violence and substance abuse.

[38] Mother's mental health diagnoses make her attracted to these unhealthy relationships. Mother's progress on addressing her mental health concerns has also been inconsistent. Mother has a habit of changing therapists when challenged, which does not allow Mother to make significant progress in addressing her mental health issues. Mother's mental health issues will require on-going, long-term treatment. Further, despite multiple referrals for substance abuse treatment, four years later, Mother is still non-compliant with required random drug screening; has not fully completed treatment; and relies upon CBD products despite her therapists’ recommendations and her knowledge that such products can interfere with obtaining custody of her children.

[39] While Mother made progress beginning in March 2023, the trial court properly questioned whether “mother's earnestness [was] an effort to avoid a possible termination of her parental rights or evidence of the beginning of needed change to safely parent the Children.” Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. II p. 73. Given Mother's patterns evidenced over the past four years, the trial court's finding that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal will not be remedied is not clearly erroneous.

III. The trial court's finding that termination of parental rights is in the Children's best interests is not clearly erroneous.

[40] Next, Mother argues that the trial court's finding that termination of her parental rights is in the Children's best interests is clearly erroneous. In determining what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. In doing so, the trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of a parent-child relationship is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. A trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Additionally, a child's need for permanency is a “central consideration” in determining the best interests of a child. Id.

[41] Here, the Children have been removed from Parents’ care for more than four years. The Children have now been in foster care since 2021 and are bonded with the foster family. The FCM and CASA both opined that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in the Children's best interests. CASA opined that Parents are “gaming the system,” by doing the “minimum necessary to get this case closed and go back to their previous lifestyle.” Tr. Vol. V p. 128. CASA further opined that the Children deserve a stable environment, which Parents are not capable of providing.

[42] During the proceedings, Father continued to engage in violence, which resulted in his incarceration. The Children do not recognize Father as their parent and do not want to participate in virtual visits with him. The Children admittedly have a relationship and bond with Mother. Mother, however, has been unable to fully rectify the issues that resulted in removal despite numerous opportunities to do so. The FCM noted that Mother has worked with five different therapists and the relationships break down when Mother is challenged, which is a “facet of borderline personality disorder.” Id. at 98. As a result, Mother has been unable to make significant, lasting progress regarding her mental health or substance abuse. The CASA noted that Mother “can be very pleasant to be around when she's in a good mood,” but Mother is “very volatile.” Id. at 131. According to CASA, if Mother disagrees with you, “she can become uncontrollable.” Id. Given Parents’ inconsistent progress over the past four years and the recommendations of the FCM and CASA, the trial court's finding that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in the Children's best interests is not clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[43] The trial court's termination of Parents’ parental rights is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

[44] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother's childhood included a history of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse perpetrated against her.

2.   A pharmacist testified that Mother's drug screen result for the May 31, 2023, indicated CBD usage, and not marijuana usage.

3.   Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8, governing termination of a parent-child relationship involving a delinquent child or CHINS, provides as follows:(a) Except as provided in section 4.5(d) of this chapter, if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.(b) If the court does not find that the allegations in the petition are true, the court shall dismiss the petition.

4.   This statute was amended effective March 11, 2024. These proceedings, however, occurred prior to the amendment.

5.   Parents also argue that there was no reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being of the Children. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive. Consequently, DCS was required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable probability that either: (1) the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied, or (2) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children. See, e.g., Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 148 n.5 (Ind. 2005). The trial court here found a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or reasons for placement outside the home of the Parents will not be remedied, and there is sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. Accordingly, we do not address whether the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children.

Tavitas, Judge.

Judges Crone and Bradford concur. Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.