IN RE: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.S. (Minor Child); (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] H.S. (“Father”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with his daughter, M.S. (“M.S.”). He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination.¹ Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child relationship, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child relationship.

Facts

[2] M.S. was born in April 2018. In September 2021, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that three-year-old M.S. was living in a car with Mother. DCS investigated the report and asked Mother to submit to a drug screen. Mother refused to submit to the drug screen, and DCS removed M.S. from Mother's care and placed her in foster care. DCS was unable to place M.S. with Father because he was incarcerated. Father's release from incarceration was scheduled for January 2022.

[3] In October 2021, DCS filed a petition alleging that M.S. was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). The trial court adjudicated M.S. to be a CHINS in November 2021. In December 2021, the trial court issued a dispositional order requiring Father to: (1) maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing; (2) secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income; (3) abstain from the use of illegal drugs; (4) complete a parenting assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; (5) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; (6) submit to random drug screens; and (7) attend scheduled visits with M.S.

[4] During the pendency of the proceedings, Father's participation in services was “hit or miss.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14). For example, Father completed a substance abuse assessment but failed to follow the assessor's recommendations. The trial court suspended Father's visits with M.S. in November 2022 because of Father's failure to comply with services. Father's visits with M.S. were never reinstated.

[5] In January 2024, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father's parental relationship with M.S. One month later, in February 2024, Father met with DCS family case manager Nathan Glaser (“FCM Glaser”). At that time, Father was testing positive for methamphetamine. In addition, Father did not have employment, stable housing, or transportation. Further, there was a warrant for Father's arrest on a petition to revoke his probation.

[6] The trial court held a termination hearing in April 2024. Although Father had notice of the hearing, he did not attend it. Father's counsel attended the hearing and did not request a continuance.

[7] At the hearing, the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, FCM Glaser testified that Father had not successfully completed any services and had “made no progress” in the case. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14). FCM Glaser also testified that Father has an “extensive criminal history[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15). According to FCM Glaser, termination was in M.S.’s best interests. In addition, FCM Glaser testified that the plan for M.S. was foster parent adoption.

[8] CASA Blake Burch (“CASA Burch”) also testified at the hearing. CASA Burch testified that he had been assigned to the case in February 2024 and had attempted to contact Father multiple times. However, Father had not responded to CASA Burch's messages. CASA Burch further testified that six-year-old M.S. had a strong bond with her foster parents and wanted them to adopt her. In addition, CASA Burch testified that termination was in M.S.’s best interests.

[9] In April 2024, the trial court issued an order terminating Father's parental relationship with M.S. That order provides, in relevant part, as follows:

10. FCM Glaser and CASA Burch both testified that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child because the father has been generally non-compliant with services throughout the life of the CHINS case with short periods of some compliance․ The father continues to test positive for illegal substances including methamphetamine, ․ and he continues to not have stable housing, employment, or transportation. The father has an outstanding arrest warrant for a petition to revoke suspended sentence. The father has a significant criminal history. The father continues to have the same issues that were present at the beginning of DCS involvement[,] and he has made no progress to address these issues. The Court concludes that termination of the parent-child relationship between the child and the father is in the best interest of the child.

11. ․ Further, the Court finds and concludes that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reason for placement outside of the home of the parents will not be remedied.

12. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the findings set forth herein, the Court concludes it was established by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations of the petition are true and each of the statutory factors have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

(App. Vol. 2 at 59-60).

[10] Father now appeals.

Decision

[11] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Id. at 1188. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where a child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. Although the right to raise one's own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. Id.

[12] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is required to allege and prove, among other things:

(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).² DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[13] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.

[14] Father argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental relationship with M.S. Specifically, his sole contention is that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was in M.S.’s best interests. In determining whether a termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The trial court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. A child's need for permanency is a central consideration in determining the child's best interests. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009).

[15] In addition, a parent's historical inability to provide a suitable environment coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Lang v. Starke County Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Also, a parent's failure to exercise the right to visit his child demonstrates a “lack of commitment to complete the actions necessary to preserve [the] parent-child relationship[.]” In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Moreover, this Court has previously held that the recommendations of the service providers, in addition to evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the child's removal would not be remedied, is sufficient to show clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[16] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Father's drug use and criminal proclivity had historically rendered him unable to provide M.S. with a suitable environment and had rendered him unable to provide the same at the time of the termination hearing. Further, at the time of the termination hearing, Father did not have stable employment and there was a warrant for his arrest on a petition to revoke probation. Father also tested positive for methamphetamine after DCS had filed the petition to terminate his parental relationship with M.S. In addition, the trial court suspended Father's visits with M.S. in November 2022 because of Father's failure to comply with services. The visits were never reinstated, and at the time of the termination hearing, Father had not visited with M.S. in at least seventeen months.

[17] Moreover, FCM Glaser and CASA Burch both testified that termination was in M.S.’s best interests. Further, the trial court concluded that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in M.S.’s removal would not be remedied, and Father does not challenge this conclusion. Lastly, we note that at the time of the termination hearing, six-year-old M.S. had been placed with her foster family for thirty-one months. The totality of this evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the termination of Father's parent-child relationship with M.S. was in M.S.’s best interests.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   M.S.’s mother (“Mother”) voluntarily relinquished her parental rights and consented to M.S.’s adoption.

2.   We note that the legislature amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 during the 2024 legislative session, and the amendment became effective March 11, 2024.

Pyle, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.