IN RE: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.P. and I.R. (Minor Children); (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] In this consolidated appeal, S.R. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationships with her two children, I.R. (“I.R.”) and L.P. (“L.P.”) (collectively “the children”), claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support the terminations.¹ Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child relationships, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

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

Facts

[3] Mother's first child, K.K. (“K.K.”), was born in May 2014. K.K.’s meconium tested positive for amphetamines, and Mother admitted using methamphetamine while pregnant. The trial court adjudicated K.K. to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”) and entered a dispositional order in July 2014. In August 2014, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed K.K. from Mother because Mother had continued to use methamphetamine and because she had been involved in a domestic violence incident with K.K.’s father in the presence of K.K. DCS placed K.K. with maternal grandmother (“maternal grandmother”). Mother continued to use methamphetamine, and, in October 2015, the trial court awarded maternal grandmother guardianship of K.K.

[4] In July 2020, the State charged Mother with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. The State filed these charges in Bartholomew County. In April 2021, Mother, who was pregnant, pled guilty to Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Mother to 730 days in the county jail and suspended her sentence to probation.

[5] Two months later, in June 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke Mother's probation. The State specifically alleged that Mother had just been charged in Jackson County with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

[6] Mother's daughter, I.R., was born in July 2021. In August 2021, Mother pled guilty in Jackson County to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and the State dismissed the remaining counts. In September 2021, the Jackson County trial court sentenced Mother to 180 days in the county jail.

[7] In October 2021, Mother admitted that she had violated the terms and conditions of her Bartholomew County probation by committing Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in Jackson County in June 2021. The Bartholomew County trial court placed her back on probation under the same terms and conditions of probation that it had previously ordered in April 2021.

[8] In August 2022, Mother's son, L.P., was born. Shortly after L.P.’s birth, DCS received a report that L.P. had tested positive for drugs. Mother told a DCS case manager that she had used methamphetamine while pregnant. DCS filed petitions alleging that both I.R. and L.P. were CHINS. DCS also removed the children from Mother's home and placed them with family members. Specifically, DCS initially placed I.R. in foster care with Mother's maternal uncle (“foster father”) and his family and L.P. with another family member. At some point, DCS moved L.P. to foster father's home so that the children would be together.

[9] In September 2022, the State filed a second petition to revoke Mother's Bartholmew County probation. The State alleged that Mother had violated the terms and conditions of her probation because she had failed to complete substance abuse treatment and had failed to report to a scheduled appointment.

[10] The trial court adjudicated the children to be CHINS in November 2022 and entered dispositional orders in December 2022. The dispositional orders entered in each case required Mother to: (1) sign any releases necessary for the family case manager to monitor compliance with the terms of the dispositional order; (2) abstain from the use of illegal substances; (3) obey the law; (4) follow all terms of probation; (5) complete a substance abuse assessment and successfully complete all recommendations; (6) submit to random drug screens; (7) attend supervised visits with the children; (8) voluntarily participate in family recovery court; and (9) participate in homebased case management services.

[11] Also, in December 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the petition to revoke Mother's probation. After hearing testimony, the trial court determined that Mother had violated the terms and conditions of her probation and scheduled a dispositional hearing for February 2023.

[12] A February 2023 case review in the CHINS case revealed that Mother was not consistently participating in services and that she had tested positive for methamphetamine four times. At some point in February 2023, Mother entered a residential substance abuse treatment program, and the trial court in her criminal case granted her motion to continue her probation revocation dispositional hearing. However, shortly thereafter, the State filed an amended petition to revoke Mother's probation. In the petition, the State alleged that Mother had left the substance abuse treatment program and had tested positive for methamphetamine.

[13] In March 2023, the trial court in the CHINS case found Mother to be in contempt because she had stopped submitting to random drug screens, attending supervised visits with the children, participating in homebased case management services, and signing releases necessary for the family case manager to monitor compliance with the terms of the dispositional order. The trial court sanctioned Mother by ordering her to be held in the county jail for twenty-four days.

[14] In April 2023, the Bartholomew County trial court held the probation revocation dispositional hearing in Mother's criminal case. Mother acknowledged that she had used methamphetamine and had left the substance abuse treatment program. The trial court ordered Mother to serve 360 days of her previously suspended sentence in the county jail.

[15] In August 2023, Mother was released from jail. She subsequently entered an inpatient treatment program at Volunteers of America (“VOA”). Mother had visits with the children during her stay at VOA. In October 2023, Mother completed the first phase of the VOA program, which was thirty days. Although VOA staff members recommended that Mother complete eighty-four days of inpatient treatment, Mother chose to return home to Father.

[16] Thereafter, Mother addressed safety concerns in the home so that supervised visits with the children could take place there. Mother's initial visits with the children went well, and the visitation supervisor felt that Mother “really was giving it her all.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 76). However, shortly thereafter, in November 2023, Mother admitted that she had resumed using methamphetamine.

[17] As Mother's substance abuse increased, Mother stopped maintaining the home. Specifically, Mother had kittens that she kept in the home's only bathroom. As the kittens got older, they defecated on the floor, and Mother did not clean the bathroom. I.R. subsequently stepped on dried fecal matter when she went into the bathroom. In addition, during another visit, sixteen-month-old L.P. found a knife under the coffee table in the living room.

[18] Thereafter, DCS moved Mother's supervised visits out of the home. However, Mother's parenting skills rapidly declined. For example, Mother began using her cell phone to pacify the children during visits, and she fell asleep during a three-hour visit. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine throughout December 2023.

[19] In January 2024, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental relationships with the children. Also, in January 2024, Mother began participating in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program at Centerstone (“Centerstone”). However, DCS was not able to monitor Mother's progress at Centerstone because Mother revoked her release of information.

[20] Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine throughout January and February 2024. In March 2024, DCS filed a motion to suspend Mother's visits with the children. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Mother had been testing positive for methamphetamine during visits with the children. The trial court further found that the children had been exhibiting “increasing behavior after visits with Mother.” (Ex. Vol. 4 at 219). Specifically, L.P. had had outbursts that had included pulling hair and biting, and the children had been terminated from their daycare because of L.P.’s behaviors. The trial court suspended Mother's visits with the children.

[21] The trial court held a termination hearing in April 2024. At the hearing, DCS family case manager Shyrrel Arahill (“FCM Arahill”) testified that the children had a bond with their foster parents and that the plan for the children was foster parent adoption. FCM Arahill further testified that termination was in the children's best interests. In addition, Guardian Ad Litem Amy Williams (“GAL Williams”) testified that termination was in the children's best interests because of Mother's ongoing methamphetamine use.

[22] Family services coordinator Jami Myers-Selzer (“Coordinator Myers-Selzer”) also testified at the hearing. Coordinator Myers-Selzer, who had provided homebased case management services to Mother and who had supervised Mother's visits with the children, testified that termination was in the children's best interests.

[23] In addition, foster father testified that the children had bowel and digestive issues resulting from Mother's drug use while pregnant. Foster father also testified that both children were participating in speech therapy, and twenty-month-old L.P. wore leg braces to help him walk.

[24] Mother testified at the hearing and acknowledged that she had a ten-year history of methamphetamine use. She further testified that she had returned to the VOA inpatient substance abuse treatment program the night before the termination hearing. According to Mother, she loved the children, she wanted a relationship with them, and she did not want to lose them. Mother also testified that she did not believe that it was in the children's best interests to never see her again. Mother suggested that the trial court award the foster parents guardianship of the children because she would still like to receive information about them.

[25] In June 2024, the trial court issued two separate thirteen-page orders terminating Mother's parental relationships with the children. In these orders, the trial court found that DCS had met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home would not be remedied and that termination was in the children's best interests.

[26] Mother now appeals.

Decision

[27] 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.

[28] 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).

[29] 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.

[30] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parent-child relationships with I.R. and L.P. Mother specifically contends that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was in the children's best interests. According to Mother, she “loved her children very much ․ [and] ․ there was no evidence that Mother had ever harmed the Children. Nor was there any evidence that Mother had ever allowed the Children to be harmed.” (Mother's Br. 16).

[31] 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 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.

[32] In addition, 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), reh'g denied. Further, this Court has previously held that the recommendations of the service providers to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal would not be remedied, is sufficient to show clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children's best interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[33] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that twenty-nine-year-old Mother has a ten-year history of methamphetamine use. Her methamphetamine use led to K.K.’s removal in 2014 and the children's removal in 2022. Mother's methamphetamine use has also led to criminal convictions, probation violations, and incarceration. Further, despite participating in substance abuse treatment programs during the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, Mother continued to use methamphetamine. Indeed, she continued to use methamphetamine even after DCS had filed the petitions to terminate her parental relationships with the children, and she tested positive for methamphetamine during visits with the children.

[34] We further note that FCM Arahill, GAL Williams, and Coordinator Myers-Selzer all testified that termination was in the children's best interests. In addition, 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 the children's removal would not be remedied. Mother acknowledges she “cannot, on appeal, in good faith argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the reasons for removal had not been remedied and that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied.” (Mother's Br. 15). Lastly, we note that at the time of the termination hearing, nearly three-year-old I.R. had been removed from Mother for nearly two years and nearly two-year-old L.P. had been removed from Mother since birth.

[35] The totality of this evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. Accordingly, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Mother's parental relationships with the children.

[36] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court also terminated L.P.’s father's (“Father”) parental rights, but Father is not participating in this appeal. I.R.’s father is unknown.

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.