B.O., Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] B.O. (Mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her minor children, T.S. and A.S. (Children). Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Mother has two children: A.S. born on August 20, 2007, and T.S. born on January 24, 2012.¹ In April 2019, after three months of dating, Mother married J.O. (Stepfather). Mother, Stepfather, and Children lived in a home together in Mentone.

[4] The Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved with the family on November 4, 2021, after receiving a report of possible domestic violence in the home. Family Case Manager (FCM) Megan Hoath assessed and substantiated the allegations. When she arrived at the home, she learned that Stepfather had been arrested following the incident and that the Children left to stay with a relative. FCM Hoath observed wall damage in the home and Mother stated that she and Stepfather had been in a verbal argument when she kicked Stepfather in the genitals and Stepfather then threw a remote control that hit her in the face. Mother downplayed the severity of the situation and blamed herself for the incident. Children were later interviewed and disclosed that they had witnessed the physical altercation between Mother and Stepfather.

[5] On November 23, 2021, DCS filed a petition alleging the Children were children in need of services (CHINS) to address concerns about domestic violence between Mother and Stepfather. On January 20, 2022, Mother and Stepfather admitted Children were CHINS. Following the CHINS adjudication, DCS permitted Children to remain in the home with Mother.

[6] The court held a dispositional hearing on February 22, 2022, and entered dispositional orders to assist the family in addressing violence in the home. Specifically, the dispositional order required Mother and Stepfather to stay in contact with DCS, keep DCS informed of housing and employment changes, keep all appointments with service providers, maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing, secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income, complete an assessment with a family preservation service provider and follow all recommendations, and not commit any acts of domestic violence.

[7] Mother's and Stepfather's efforts in complying with the dispositional order were “slow going” at first. Exhibits at 18. Mother insisted that she did not need services and expressed adamant opposition to services.² She did finally complete an assessment, and it was recommended that she complete Domestic Violence Moral Reconation Therapy (DV/MRT), a program that is often conducted in a group setting, as well as individual and family counseling. Mother began DV/MRT in October 2022. Mother's progress through the program was slow but she eventually completed it on January 30, 2024. At some point, Mother was allowed to participate in that program individually with her therapist because there was no group for women available at the time. Stepfather started in the DV/MRT program but stopped participating after completing two of twenty-four modules.

[8] It was also recommended that Mother participate in individual counseling. Mother's individual therapy was primarily done through telehealth due to Mother's claimed transportation issues. Stepfather would interfere with Mother's telehealth sessions, often yelling at Mother in a rude, disrespectful, insulting, and demeaning way. Mother's therapist also noted that Mother's demeanor would change during the sessions if Stepfather was nearby. On the day Mother completed DV/MRT, Stepfather interrupted the session yelling, “she [is] just as crazy as she's always been,” “she hasn't learned anything,” and “counseling [is] not working.” Transcript at 48, 49.

[9] Regarding transportation issues, Stepfather's grandfather was willing to and oftentimes did drive Mother and Stepfather to their appointments. DCS tried to lessen the number of trips by scheduling multiple appointments for the same day, but Mother and Stepfather did not want all their appointments on one day. Stepfather also did not want to wait around for Mother if her appointments or visits with Children extended beyond his appointment times. DCS also provided Mother and Stepfather with gas cards to help defray the cost of transportation to and from their appointments.

[10] Concerns about domestic violence between Mother and Stepfather continued throughout the CHINS proceedings. Following a meeting between Mother and the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), Stepfather lifted his shirt to reveal bite marks and bruises all over his chest and torso and told CASA that Mother abused him. In June 2022, FCM Hoath was asked to complete a second assessment after receiving a report of domestic violence during an incident at a gas station while Children were in the car and able to observe. Mother told FCM Hoath that she accidentally hit Stepfather in the face.³ In August 2022, an FCM met with Mother and observed that Mother had a black eye and broken nose. Mother explained that she had shifted the blanket she shared with Stepfather and this caused Stepfather to have a jerk reaction and swing at her nose. On April 5, 2023, an assistant with DCS took a call from Mother, who was yelling and screaming and asking to speak with a family case manager about visitation. There was a lot of commotion in the background and Stepfather could be heard yelling and screaming, and Mother yelling, “get off me, you're hurting me” to Stepfather. Transcript at 39.

[11] In the early stages of the CHINS proceedings, Mother and Stepfather would attend team meetings and they would frequently devolve into shouting and screaming at each other. After counsel for Mother and Stepfather started attending team meetings, Mother and Stepfather's behavior improved but they would still have verbal outbursts directed at each other.

[12] With regard to housing, the family was evicted from their home in August 2022 after the owner of the home passed away. Mother reported that they moved to a campground and lived in tents for a short while before they moved to a camper on someone else's property. DCS received conflicting information about whether the family had access to electricity and water. Due to the lack of stable housing, the court ordered Children removed from Mother's care on August 29, 2022, and they were placed with Mother's brother. Mother's brother unexpectedly passed away in July 2023. Believing that she was going to inherit her brother's house, Mother claimed to have secured stable housing. Mother, however, is not the only heir to her brother's estate, and the personal representative thereof filed a Petition for Possession of Real Estate and to Sell Real Estate, alleging that the home must be sold to pay expenses of the estate.

[13] After Children were removed from Mother's home, she was ordered to participate in supervised visitation once a week for two hours. The visits occurred at the Mentone library or a nearby park. Mother was generally consistent with visitation as the case progressed, though she blamed transportation issues for being late or missing a few visits. At no time did Mother request increased frequency or greater duration of her visits with Children. Those who supervised the visits noted that Mother greatly favored T.S. to the obvious exclusion of A.S. CASA also noted that Mother was not attentive or interactive with Children during the visits, focusing instead on questioning and arguing with CASA. A.S., who turned seventeen in August 2024, had his last visit with Mother in January 2024 and communicated that he no longer desired to visit Mother.

[14] Throughout the CHINS proceedings, other concerns were brought to the attention of DCS. At a team meeting on May 31, 2022, Stepfather reported accidentally leaving a camera on in the home and discovering, after he replayed it later, that it contained the sounds of people having sex. Stepfather suggested that the sounds were being made by Mother and A.S., then about fifteen years old, having sex together. At that same team meeting, Mother and Stepfather both reported that they believed A.S. was molesting T.S. They provided no further details and continued to allow A.S. to babysit T.S. At a subsequent team meeting, Stepfather alleged that he heard A.S. calling out Mother's name while he was masturbating. He also alleged that he knew Children had been molested previously and he named the alleged perpetrators. At one of T.S.’s counseling sessions, Stepfather accused Mother of doing drugs and having sex with A.S., all within earshot of T.S.⁴

[15] DCS also had concerns with the fact that Stepfather was convicted of child molesting in 2000 and failure to register as a sex offender in 2009. Since his 2000 conviction, Stepfather had accumulated several other substantiations for child molesting or sexual abuse.⁵ When Stepfather was a juvenile, DCS substantiated allegations that he sexually abused his siblings. In March 2011, DCS substantiated allegations that Stepfather, then thirty years old, sexually abused an eight-year-old family member. In 2015, DCS again substantiated allegations that Stepfather was the alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse years prior when the victim was between the ages of seven and nine years old. In August of 2020, DCS was asked to assess allegations of child molestation and sexual battery by Stepfather against two female victims, ages eleven and nine at the time of the assessment. The allegations by one of the victims were substantiated but the allegations by the second victim were unsubstantiated. Mother admitted that she knew about Stepfather's 2000 conviction, but claimed she was not aware of the other incidents. Mother repeatedly told service providers that despite his history, she will not leave Stepfather.

[16] On March 30 and August 9, 2023, the court modified Children's permanency plan to include a concurrent plan of adoption. On October 26, 2023, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights. The court held a fact-finding hearing on April 8, 2024. CASA and a DCS family case manager testified that termination was in the best interests of Children. DCS's plan for Children was adoption by their current placement, under whose care Children are thriving. On June 27, 2024, the trial court issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law terminating Mother's parental rights. Mother now appeals.

Standard of Review

[17] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and thus we will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019). In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside its judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[18] Our review for clear error is confined to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). Further, reviewing whether the evidence “clearly and convincingly” supports the findings, or the findings “clearly and convincingly” support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014) (observing that weighing the evidence under the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable to termination cases is the trial court's prerogative, not ours).

Discussion & Decision

[19] Under the statutory authority applicable at the time of the underlying termination proceedings, DCS was required to allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence that, among other things, one 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[.]

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B); Ind. Code § 31-34-12-2. DCS was also required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in Child's best interests. I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C).

[20] On appeal, Mother's sole challenge is to the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Children's removal or continued placement outside Mother's home will not be remedied. In determining the probability that conditions will change,

the court must judge a parent's fitness to care for his or her child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions. Due to the permanent effect of termination, the trial court also must evaluate the parent's habitual patterns of conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child․. A court may properly consider evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and employment. Moreover, a trial court “can reasonably consider the services offered by the [DCS] to the parent and the parent's response to those services.”

In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted).

[21] Here, the court set out eighty-two specific findings of fact, none of which Mother challenges on appeal, and then explained its conclusion that the conditions resulting in removal or continued placement outside Mother's home were unlikely to change:

9. Here, although Mother has now completed DV-MRT, eventually became more consistent with therapy, and maintained visits with the children, she has often refused to accept the assistance and services offered, and her hostility interfered with her ability to benefit from services offered.

10. Notably, Mother has chosen to ignore major roadblocks toward reunification with her children by failing to ensure secure housing and by continuing her relationship with [Stepfather]. As such, continued placement outside the home was previously warranted, and now weighs heavily in favor of termination.

11. There is a reasonable probability, based upon the past pattern of conduct of Mother both prior to and during the CHINS case, that the reasons for removal and the reasons for placement outside of Mother's home are likely to continue.

12. Continued exposure to domestic violence, lack of housing stability, and residing with a [Stepfather] with a history of child molesting who refuses to engage in services poses a threat to the well-being of the children.

13. There is a substantial probability that Mother's pattern of valuing [Stepfather] over her children will continue and lead to future neglect or deprivation of the children's basic needs.

14. The Court has no doubt that Mother loves her children. The Court is also convinced, however, that Mother, either intentionally or otherwise, has chosen [Stepfather] over her children. Whether born of co-dependency, her efforts at coping with her own personal life challenges and trauma or something else entirely, Mother has chosen to stay with a man who is a convicted child molester, who has multiple additional substantiations for child molesting, with whom she has a continuing volatile and violent relationship, and who has shown no willingness or interest in cooperating with ordered services or in learning skills to position himself where he could safely coparent the children. As such, Mother has demonstrated a history of poor decision making regarding the people with whom she shares her life with, regarding the people she allows to reside in her home and care for her children, and her ability to meet the needs of her children.

Appendix at 59-60.

[22] Mother's argument on appeal is that, although she was not completely compliant with the dispositional order, she did take steps to comply. Mother points out that beginning in November 2023, she had worked with her assigned life skills coach and had cancelled only two or three appointments. We first note that Mother points to her participation in services nearly two years since the start of the CHINS action and three months after the termination petition was filed. Moreover, Mother ignores the evidence that throughout the CHINS proceedings, she insisted she did not need services and was adamantly opposed to participating in those services. And, although Mother did finally complete DV/MRT, it took her more than a year to do so. Further, while Mother did engage in individual counseling, these sessions were often interrupted by Stepfather or Mother's demeanor was affected by his presence.

[23] Mother also claims that she made some improvements with her living situation, which claim is based on her belief that she will inherit her deceased brother's home. The trial court put no weight on Mother's assertions that she had obtained secure and stable housing for her and Children, noting that Mother is not her deceased brother's only heir. Indeed, Mother wholly ignores the fact that the personal representative is seeking to sell the real estate to pay the expenses of the estate. Moreover, at the time of the termination hearing, neither Mother or Stepfather were employed or had any visible means of support.

[24] Mother blames her failure to make progress on transportation issues. The record reflects, however, that DCS tried to help Mother in this regard by providing gas cards, clustering appointments, and even offering to meet at Mother's home or provide transportation.

[25] In short, Mother's arguments are simply requests for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The trial court's conclusions that the conditions resulting in removal of Children in August 2022 and continued placement outside Mother's home are unlikely to be remedied is overwhelmingly supported by its findings and the evidence.

[26] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Aa.S. is the biological father of Children. He voluntarily relinquished his parental rights and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Initially, Mother refused to participate in services at the Bowen Center, so DCS made arrangements for her to participate in some services that were available through Benchmark. Benchmark, however, did not offer all of the services recommended for Mother. DCS was eventually able to get Mother to agree to continue with services through the Bowen Center.

3.   On July 11, 2022, Mother was arrested for her role in the incident, and the criminal court issued a no contact order (NCO) between Mother and Stepfather. The NCO and criminal case were eventually dismissed.

4.   At the fact-finding hearing on the termination petition, Stepfather denied saying most of these things that others testified to.

5.   DCS assessment workers explained that to substantiate allegations they must gather enough credible and detailed evidence that would cause a reasonable person to believe by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations were true. If this standard is not met, an allegation will be found to be unsubstantiated.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Scheele concur. Vaidik, J. and Scheele, J., concur.