V.M. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] V.M. (Mother) gave birth to her son R.M. (Child) in 2012 but has never been his primary caretaker. Instead, Child's maternal grandmother, T.M. (Grandmother), assumed care for Child and later was named his custodian. But Grandmother struggled to care for him properly, leading to several state interventions, the last of which resulted in a finding that Child was a child in need of services (CHINS). When Mother failed to undergo the services needed to reunite with Child, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) successfully petitioned to terminate her parental rights. Mother appeals that judgment, claiming that the termination was not in Child's best interests. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Mother was “in and out of jail” when she gave birth to Child. Tr. Vol. II, p. 118. By her own admission, she “was more focused on other things than the priority of [her] child.” Id. Child's father also had little involvement in Child's life. As a result of Mother's disinterest in parenting Child, Grandmother took Child home from the hospital and cared for him.

[3] About 11/212 years later, the paternity court named Grandmother as Child's third-party custodian. The court also ordered both Mother and Child's father to pay child support and later found them in contempt several times when they did not.

[4] In the years that followed, Mother continued her criminal activity. She was convicted of Class D felony theft in 2014 and Level 6 felony theft in 2015. Her failure to comply with her probation led to petitions to revoke it. In late 2018, Grandmother sought a protective order against Mother, alleging that Mother allowed her boyfriend to enter Grandmother's home without permission. Grandmother also alleged the boyfriend drew a gun and wrapped his hands around Grandmother's neck. The court issued an ex parte protective order against Mother but later dismissed it at Grandmother's request.

[5] Grandmother struggled to care for Child, especially when it came to ensuring he attended elementary school. The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) intervened, and Child became the subject of two informal adjustments. The first, in 2019 when Child was about seven years old, addressed Child's general and educational neglect. The second, in 2020, addressed the same neglect as well as Grandmother's mental health problems. At this point, Mother was not exercising parenting time but was undergoing substance abuse treatment for a continuing drug problem.

[6] When Grandmother's educational neglect and mental health difficulties continued and new problems of unstable housing and criminal behavior arose, DCS petitioned to find Child to be a child in need of services (CHINS). At the time, Child was so academically behind that he had been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. Child eventually was placed in foster care. The CHINS court ordered Mother to participate in various services, and DCS offered Mother further services, including diagnostic evaluation, case management, individual counseling, and random drug screens. DCS hoped to prepare Mother to parent Child if reunification with Grandmother failed.

[7] Child thrived in foster care. He improved so much academically that he no longer was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. Meanwhile, Mother failed to complete any of the offered services. She also refused to subject her most recent boyfriend, with whom she had lived for four years, to any review by DCS. Despite Mother's reluctance to undergo drug testing, DCS had no concerns that Mother was using drugs because she had achieved sobriety.

[8] DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights after Grandparent, Mother, and Father failed to complete services. Mother acknowledged she did not participate fully in services but attributed her noncompliance to what she viewed as a predetermined outcome.

[9] The trial court granted termination of Mother and Father's parental rights. As to each parent, the court concluded that: (1) there is a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or the reasons for continued placement outside the home will not be remedied; (2) continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child's well-being; (3) DCS has a satisfactory plan for Child's care and treatment (adoption); and (4) termination of parental rights was in Child's best interests. Only Mother appeals that judgment.

Discussion and Decision

[10] When reviewing a judgment terminating parental rights, we will set aside the trial court's judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence that supports the judgment. Id. Mother does not challenge the trial court's findings of fact so we accept those findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[11] For the termination of Mother's parental rights to stand, DCS must have proven by clear and convincing evidence the elements set forth in Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4(b) (2019).  ¹ Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on only one of these statutory elements: that termination was in Child's best interests. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C) (2019). We determine that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that DCS proved this element.

[12] To determine a child's best interests, a court must consider the “totality of evidence.” Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019). “A parent's historical inability to provide a suitable environment along with the parent's current inability to do the same supports a finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children.” Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Fam. & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[13] The evidence showed that Mother had never been 11-year-old Child's primary caregiver and that she had failed to complete services aimed at ensuring she had the basic parental skills necessary to do so. Mother nevertheless contends she can effectively parent Child and points to evidence of her employment and stable home. But Mother ignores that she has failed to demonstrate that ability over the past 11 years of Child's life. “[C]hildren cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 649.

[14] Although Mother eventually achieved sobriety after years of substance abuse and had no recent contacts with the criminal justice system, her abandonment of Child years ago set the stage for the unstable home environment that Child experienced for most of the past decade. More recently, Mother's refusal to complete services aimed at preparing her to reunite with Child shows that she still is unwilling to prioritize Child's needs over her own. A parent's interests must be subordinated to those of the child when determining a child's best interests. Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. “Central among these interests is [a child's] need for permanency.” Id.

[15] The DCS family case manager and the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) both recommended termination of Mother's parental rights. These recommendations, combined with the wealth of evidence showing Mother's indifference to Child's needs over the years, were sufficient to support the trial court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests. See A.D.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting that evidence sufficient to show termination is in child's best interests where, among other things, the family case manager and the guardian ad litem recommended termination).

[16] We affirm the trial court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights.

FOOTNOTES

1.   After DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights, the Indiana General Assembly significantly amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 to alter the allegations that DCS must include in a petition to terminate parental rights. See Ind. Public Law 70-2024, SEC. 4 (eff. Mar. 11, 2024). The amendment does not change the requirement at issue here—that DCS show termination is in the child's best interests.

Weissmann, Judge.

Judges May and Scheele concur. [17] May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.