In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.M. (Minor Child), and D.M. (Mother) and J.H. (Father), Appellants-Respondents v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] D.M. (“Mother”) and J.H. (“Father,” and together with Mother, “Parents”) separately appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their minor child A.M. (“Child”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born to Parents in June 2023. The Howard County Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Child was born exposed to methamphetamine and amphetamines. During the subsequent investigation and assessment of the family, Mother admitted to using illegal substances while pregnant and DCS confirmed her admission through lab testing of Child at birth. Mother claimed she stopped using illegal drugs after she learned she was pregnant, but an oral drug screen taken during the assessment indicated that she continued to use methamphetamine. Father, who was at the time the alleged father, admitted to using illegal drugs before and after Child was born, and an oral drug screen taken during the assessment was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

[3] DCS removed Child from Parents’ care and placed him with his maternal grandmother, with whom Child's older sibling already lived. On June 28, 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”) based upon Child being born drug exposed and Parents’ continued substance abuse. Following a CHINS factfinding hearing on August 21, 2023, the court adjudicated Child a CHINS. The court held a dispositional hearing on September 18, 2023. The court ordered Parents to participate in reunification services including that they: maintain contact with DCS; enroll in recommended programs; keep all appointments with DCS and service providers; maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing; establish paternity; refrain from using all illegal controlled substances; complete substance abuse and psychological assessments and follow any recommendations; submit to random drug screens; attend visits with Child; and participate in family recovery court.

[4] The court held a review hearing on December 18, 2023. The court found that “neither parent made any substantial progress in addressing their chronic substance abuse issues, or in addressing the underlying causes for their addictions.” Father's Appendix Volume II at 95. Mother had “refused to participate in therapeutic or rehabilitative services if they featured an individual component,” claiming that “she had separation anxiety, and she could not possibly attend these services without [Father] present with her, despite the therapies being individual in nature.” Id. at 95-96. Mother “then continued to abuse illegal substances, including Methamphetamines and Amphetamines.” Id. at 96. As for Father, the court found that he “engaged in some therapeutic services to address addiction, but he too continued to test positive for substances, including Methamphetamines and Amphetamines,” and submitted “a negative screen only one time throughout the entire CHINS case, resulting in his inability to ever hold a visit” with Child. Id. During the hearing, when the court discussed the necessity of inpatient rehabilitative services for Parents “to get a handle on their addictions,” Father “suddenly expressed doubts about his parentage and requested a paternity test.” Id. Subsequent genetic testing confirmed Father as Child's biological father.

[5] DCS discovered in mid-December 2023 that Mother was pregnant and conveyed the “urgent need” for Mother to stop using illegal substances and to seek inpatient rehabilitative care. Id. at 97. Mother dismissed concerns about her continued drug use despite being continually told of “the extreme risk” such use posed to her unborn child. Id. The court held a review hearing on March 18, 2024. At the time of the hearing, Mother and Father had both failed to follow through with recommendations for inpatient drug treatment and both continued to test positive for illegal substances.

[6] On May 20, 2024, DCS filed a verified petition for the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship between Parents and Child. The court held a permanency hearing on June 17, 2024, and found that Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine on drug screens collected between December 2023 and May 2024. Father also tested positive for methamphetamine on screens collected between March and May 2024. The court approved a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption.

[7] Mother gave birth to Child's sibling, Am.M. (“Sibling”) in July 2024. DCS received a report that Sibling was born positive for methamphetamine. DCS Assessment Worker Constance Peterson (“AW Peterson”) observed Sibling in the hospital and noted that he “suffered from tremors,” and “screamed a lot. He had an upset belly. Did not sleep a lot.” Transcript Volume II at 16, 45. Father admitted to AW Peterson that both he and Mother had used drugs throughout Mother's pregnancy with Sibling. Sibling was removed from Parents’ care, also placed with his maternal grandmother, and the court subsequently adjudicated Sibling a CHINS. In August 2024, Court Appointed Special Advocate Michelle Harris (“CASA Harris”) visited with Child and noted he was exhibiting “signs of developmental issues” possibly “due to substance use in utero” and determined that evaluation at Hope Bridge was appropriate. Father's Appendix Volume II at 56.

[8] The court held a termination hearing on September 9, 2024. DCS presented the testimony of licensed mental health counselor Stacy Hawkins, Family Case Manager James Shoffner, Family Case Manager Gabrielle Calobrace (“FCM Calobrace”), AW Peterson, CASA Harris, and Mother. Neither Mother nor Father presented any witnesses. Hawkins testified that she had provided home-based therapy to Parents since August 2023. Hawkins observed that, over the course of the CHINS case, Parents had made “little to no progress” toward maintaining sobriety. Transcript Volume II at 8. FCM Calobrace testified that Father had not attended any inpatient drug treatment and had not had a single visit with Child because he had not provided enough clean drug screens to ever qualify for a visit. She noted that while Father attended “a very short detox” program “at Turning Point” in April 2024, he “did not follow up” with the program and “only had one clean screen” before “he started screening dirty again.” Id. at 31-32. As for Mother, FCM Calobrace stated that Mother was able to visit with Child in November 2023, but she subsequently tested positive for illegal substances and visitation was canceled. FCM Calobrace explained that Mother provided enough negative drug screens to again qualify for visitation with Child in May 2024 and late July 2024; however, just prior to the termination hearing, Mother again tested positive for methamphetamine.

[9] Mother testified that she has used illegal substances for five or six years including methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana. She stated that she does not consider herself to be “an addict,” and that she “maybe” used illegal drugs because she was “stressed.” Id. at 20. Mother acknowledged that all three of her children lived with her mother due to her illegal drug use. She stated that she and Father recently allowed a “friend,” who had been living in a homeless shelter, to move in with them since the children are gone. Id. at 22. Mother testified that she did not go to inpatient rehabilitation as recommended by DCS and the court because she had “too much to do at the house. There's a lot to clean.” Id. at 23. Mother testified that she had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder both as a child and as an adult, and that she did not take any prescribed medications because she “ran out” and “didn't bother going to another doctor.” Id. at 20, 25. When asked on cross-examination if “that was why [she] was using street drugs,” Mother answered, “Uh, a little bit.” Id. at 26.

[10] On October 7, 2024, the court entered a detailed eighteen-page order terminating the parent-child relationship between Parents and Child. Specifically, the court found that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or continued placement outside the home would not be remedied; the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being of Child; termination of parental rights was in Child's best interests; and there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Child, that being adoption.

Discussion

[11] Parents each challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination of their parental rights. Regarding termination of parental rights, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 ¹ provides in pertinent part that DCS must allege as follows:

(c) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege:

(1) the existence of one (1) or more of the circumstances described in subsection (d);

(2) that there is a satisfactory plan for care and treatment of the child; and

(3) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests.

(d) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances: [2]

* * * * *

(3) That 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.

(4) That there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health, or life of the child․

[12] If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a). A finding in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2. We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014). We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. We give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. Id. “Because a case that seems close on a ‘dry record’ may have been much more clear-cut in person, we must be careful not to substitute our judgment for the trial court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at 640. To the extent Parents do not challenge the court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[13] Both Parents challenge the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home will not be remedied. In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child's removal will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. See E.M, 4 N.E.3d at 642-643. First, we identify the conditions that led to removal, and second, we determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. at 643. In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness as of the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions, balancing a parent's recent improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. We entrust that delicate balance to the trial court, which has discretion to weigh a parent's prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination. Id. Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions does not preclude them from finding that a parent's past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Id. The statute does not simply focus on the initial basis for a child's removal for purposes of determining whether a parent's rights should be terminated, but also those bases resulting in the continued placement outside the home. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A court may consider evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, lack of adequate housing and employment, and the services offered by DCS and the parent's response to those services. Id. Where there are only temporary improvements and the pattern of conduct shows no overall progress, the court might reasonably find that under the circumstances the problematic situation will not improve. Id.

[14] The record reveals that Child was removed from Parents’ care due to being born substance exposed as well as Parents’ continued illegal drug use. The record further reveals that, during the course of the CHINS case, neither parent sought or followed through with effective treatment for his or her drug addiction despite orders to do so. Regarding Father, he was never approved for visitation with Child because of repeated positive illegal drug screens. Moreover, the trial court found that “[i]n the weeks preceding the hearing on the termination of his rights, [Father] continued his abuse of illegal substances.” Father's Appendix Volume II at 98. Indeed, while there was evidence that Father attended “a very short detox” program “at Turning Point” in April 2024, he “did not follow up” with the program and “only had one clean screen” before “he started screening dirty again.” Transcript Volume II at 31-32.

[15] Regarding Mother, the evidence indicates that she has inconsistently visited with Child due to her continued illegal drug use and, just prior to the termination hearing, Mother again tested positive for methamphetamine. The evidence demonstrates that, during the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, Mother became pregnant again and gave birth to Parents’ second child born exposed to methamphetamine. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother wholly failed to acknowledge her addictions, and she made excuses for her unwillingness to attend inpatient rehabilitation. The court found that Mother's “lack of progress and lack of willingness to participate in offered treatment provides the Court with no confidence that [s]he will stop using illegal controlled substances.” Father's Appendix Volume II at 100. In light of the unchallenged findings and evidence set forth above and in the record, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding a reasonable probability exists that the conditions resulting in Child's removal and reasons for placement outside Parents’ care will not be remedied.³

[16] Mother also specifically challenges the trial court's conclusion that termination of her rights was in Child's best interests. Although Father does not make a separate best interests argument, he incorporates some applicable language into his other assertions, so we will address the trial court's conclusion as it applies to both Parents. In determining the best interests of children, the trial court is required to look to the totality of the evidence. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the children. Id. The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. The recommendation of a case manager and child advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “A parent's historical inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests.” Castro v. State Off. of Fam. & Child., 842 N.E.2d 367, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

[17] FCM Calobrace opined that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in Child's best interests so that he would have “a safe and stable sober living environment” and she agreed that Child had “waited long enough on these parents to choose him over their drug use and lifestyles.” Transcript Volume II at 37. She stated that both Parents “continue to screen positive” and thus, they had done nothing to cause her to believe “that more time would lead to a different outcome.” Id. at 37-38. Similarly, CASA Harris opined that termination of Parents’ rights and adoption by his maternal grandmother was in Child's best interests. CASA Harris acknowledged that while Mother had shown some “bouts of sobriety,” those periods were always “followed with relapse.” Id. at 48. She testified that she did not believe that Parents “have shown sufficient progress in their ability to stay sober,” to parent Child “safely” or to prioritize any of “their own children.” Id. Based upon this testimony, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding that termination of Parents’ rights was in Child's best interests.

[18] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's termination order.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 was amended March 11, 2024. Pub. L. No. 70-2024, § 4 (eff. March 11, 2024)). As DCS filed the termination petition on May 20, 2024, there is no question that the amended version of the statute applies here. We note that Mother refers to the prior version of the statute in her brief, and to the extent she makes arguments pursuant to the prior version, those arguments are misplaced and we decline to address them.

2.   As noted by Father, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d) contains twelve “items DCS may allege in a petition to terminate” a parent-child relationship, but in this case DCS alleges only subsections (3) and (4). Father's Brief at 9.

3.   Although Parents also challenge the trial court's finding that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the Child's well-being, we need not address that argument as Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c)(1) provides that a termination petition must allege “the existence of one (1) or more of the circumstances described in subsection (d)[.]” (emphasis added). Subsection (d) similarly provides “A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances.” Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the involuntary termination statute, as amended, requires allegation and proof of only one of the twelve circumstances listed in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d).

Brown, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur. Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.