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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.S. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights as to her two-year-old son, D.S. (Child). The State removed Child from Mother's custody based on Mother's neglect when Mother was experiencing severe symptoms of mental illness and not taking her prescription medication for that condition. Mother later removed Child from his caretaker's home without authorization and fled out of state, leading to criminal charges both in Indiana and Ohio. After exhibiting violent behavior and undergoing months of intensive mental health treatment in Ohio that failed to restore Mother's competency, the trial court terminated her parental rights. We affirm that judgment.

Facts

[2] In late December 2022, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) investigated a report that Mother was neglecting Child, then eight months old. At the time of DCS's investigation, Mother had moved with Child to a women's shelter without bringing any of their possessions with them. The shelter had requested that Mother leave after she became violent with another shelter resident.

[3] Mother has been repeatedly hospitalized over the last decade with a diagnosis of schizo-affective disorder or other conditions on the “schizophrenic spectrum.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 7, 65. Mother's three older children were removed from her care before Child's birth due to circumstances related to Mother's mental illness. Mother's parental rights for two of these children were terminated and the children adopted.

[4] When speaking to the DCS investigator about Child, Mother was incoherent and unable to follow the conversation. Mother told the investigator that she had become pregnant by an angel and that Child was not a real baby. Mother also said that, after leaving the shelter, she and Child would go home with God. When informed that Child was being removed from Mother's custody, Mother became violent with the police officers assisting with the removal. The officers found knives and small machetes in Mother's bag after they restrained her.

[5] DCS then petitioned to have Child adjudged to be a child in need of services (CHINS). After granting the petition, the CHINS court entered a dispositional order requiring Mother to complete a psychological evaluation and timely meet all personal medical and mental health needs. The court also ordered Mother to undergo parenting and substance abuse assessments and complete all resulting recommendations, to engage in random drug screens, and to attend all scheduled visitations with Child. Child was placed with Mother's boyfriend (Boyfriend), who originally was thought to be Child's father before DNA testing showed otherwise. Child's father is unknown.

[6] A few months later, Mother removed Child from Boyfriend's home without permission and took Child to Ohio. Mother was eventually arrested and criminally charged in both Ohio and Indiana. An Ohio criminal court ruled Mother incompetent to stand trial and placed her in a psychiatric facility to undergo a six-month competency restoration program. The program, however, was unsuccessful, and the Ohio court ultimately dismissed Mother's criminal charges. Mother was then transferred to Indiana to face criminal prosecution. The Indiana criminal court released Mother on her own recognizance, leaving her able to reengage in the services ordered by the CHINS court.

[7] Mother thereafter completed an initial mental health assessment. She refused to respond to portions of the assessment and reported her belief that she had no mental health issues. Mother experienced difficulties engaging in homebased case management services and with Child during supervised visits.

[8] Eighteen months after Child's removal from Mother, DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights. Due to Mother's hospitalizations and incarceration, she had not visited with Child for ten of the twelve months before the termination hearing. Boyfriend continued to care for Child, who was faring well. And Mother's Indiana criminal charges remained pending during the CHINS proceeding.

[9] After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights. Focusing on Mother's mental illness and violent episodes, the juvenile court concluded, among other things, that Mother was not likely to remedy the circumstances that led to Child's initial and continued removal, that continuation of Mother's relationship to Child threatened Child, and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests. Mother appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Mother contends that DCS failed to prove her parental rights should be terminated. DCS had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence:

(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.

***

(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).¹

[11] In reviewing the termination of parental rights, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and, second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, and we will set aside the judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

[12] Mother challenges only the juvenile court's conclusions that there exists a reasonable probability: (1) that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or the reasons for placement outside Mother's home will not be remedied; and (2) that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child's well-being. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (2023). Because the applicable version of these statutory provisions is written in the disjunctive, DCS needed to prove only the remedying conditions or threat to well-being prong but not both. In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We find that DCS met its burden of proving the threat to well-being prong and, therefore, affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

[13] When determining whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to a child's well-being, we consider “a parent's habitual pattern of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.” See, e.g., In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The juvenile court “need not wait until a child is irreversibly influenced by a deficient lifestyle such that her physical, mental, and social growth is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship.” In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Termination is proper when the evidence shows the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id.

[14] Here, Child was initially removed from Mother when Child was eight months old. Mother left her home with Child without any belongings and then became violent at the shelter where they were staying. Also contributing to the removal were Mother's statements suggesting that she and Child would die after leaving the shelter and her possession of knives and small machetes that might have made that suggestion a reality. Mother was not taking her medication for her significant mental illness at the time and later refused to take her medication consistently. Three of Mother's other children had been removed from her care previously, and two had been adopted after termination of Mother's parental rights.

[15] Even after Child's removal, Mother showed herself to be a continuing threat to Child. When Child was briefly left alone in a room in Boyfriend's home, Mother whisked Child away from the home and traveled across state lines. Mother's actions led to criminal charges and her incarceration in two states. Even after six months in a court-ordered competency restoration program in Ohio, during which Mother was under court order to take prescribed medication, Mother remained incompetent to stand trial there. And her Indiana charges had not been resolved by the time of the termination hearing.

[16] Even so, Mother continues to show little insight into her illness. At the termination hearing, she classified her years of mental health treatment as “malpractice.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 7. She could not recount an accurate treatment or hospitalization history. Despite Mother's troubling behavior at the shelter and in absconding with Child, Mother testified that she was not a threat to Child when Mother was unmedicated.

[17] Mother reported that she had shown some improvement since returning to Indiana. She had obtained an apartment, phone, and car and purportedly was taking her medication. But Mother's testimony at the termination hearing showed that she still rejected her mental health diagnosis and did not comprehend the extent to which her condition impacted her ability to care for Child. In any case, even if Mother had made temporary progress, her history showed a perpetual failure to maintain stability for any significant period of time. Clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that continuation of the parent-child relationship threatens Child, given Mother's mental illness and habitual conduct.

[18] Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The amended version of Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 took effect five days after DCS petitioned for termination of parental rights in this case. See Public Law 70-2024, SEC. 4, eff. March 11, 2024. Mother cites the earlier version of this statute, and DCS does not dispute that the earlier version applies.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.