AN v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] R.M. (“Father”) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to six of his minor children An.M, Al.M., Ca.M., Co.M., Con.M, and D.M. (“the Children”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and B.W. (“Mother”)¹ are the parents of An.M., born in December 2013, twins D.M. and Ca.M., born in November 2016, Co.M., born in December 2017, Al.M., born in June 2019, and Con.M., born in September 2021. In September of 2021, Father was charged with two counts of resisting law enforcement and criminal trespass after an incident at Riley Children's Hospital when Father became combative and refused to leave the premises after claiming the staff was trying to hurt one of the Children who was being treated there.² He subsequently pled guilty to misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and was sentenced to 180 days with 172 days suspended.

[3] On July 22, 2022, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Children were the victims of neglect due to poor home conditions. At that time, Father and Mother already had an “extensive history with DCS with at least three other children having been removed and their parental rights terminated” and “several reports regarding medical neglect and mental health.” Exhibits Volume III at 118. An assessment found the Children “to be very dirty, wearing ill-fitting clothing, significantly underweight and cognitively impaired and socially backward.” Appellant's Amended Appendix Volume II at 7. Father and Mother were uncooperative with the assessment and in a later visit to the home, DCS discovered all of the Children were wearing “extremely soiled” diapers, including the older children who were seven and eight years old. Transcript Volume II at 59. Father and Mother fled with the Children before the assessment could be completed and they were not located for approximately five weeks. When the family was finally located, the Children appeared to be wearing the same soiled clothing as they had been wearing weeks earlier, and they were covered in “lice and live fleas.” Exhibits Volume III at 118. The Children could not tell the family case managers “their names, how old they were, their birthdays, their favorite colors, nothing.” Transcript Volume II at 59. The “home reeked of human urine and was in disarray.” Appellant's Amended Appendix Volume II at 8. Father was “extremely aggressive and threatening” to the family case managers, screaming at them and claiming that he worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation on classified matters,³ and he repeatedly made threats about having them arrested and charged federally. Id. Mother admitted that the Children had not been to the doctor recently and that some of the Children's severe medical issues were not being treated. Due to his volatility and aggression, Father had to be detained by law enforcement during the emergency removal of the Children from the home.

[4] On October 3, 2022, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”). Following a bifurcated factfinding hearing on November 28, 2022, the trial court adjudicated the Children as CHINS with respect to Father.⁴ In the parking lot after the hearing, Mother pulled DCS Director Heidi Decker (“Director Decker”) aside and “reported that she had bruises on her upper arms that were caused by [Father].” Transcript Volume II at 55. At the same time, DCS Regional Manager Harmony Jensen (“Manager Jensen”) texted Director Decker about “potential [c]hild [p]ornography on [Father's] phone.” Id. The alleged abuse and child pornography were both reported to law enforcement.⁵

[5] The court held a dispositional hearing on January 31, 2023. The court ordered Father to participate in reunification services including orders that he: maintain weekly contact with DCS; allow for unannounced visits to the home; enroll in recommended programs; keep all appointments with DCS and service providers; maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing with adequate bedding, functional utilities, adequate supplies of food and food preparation facilities; secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income; refrain from using all illegal controlled substances; obey the law; participate in home-based counseling and follow recommendations; complete a parenting assessment and any recommendations; complete a psychological assessment and any recommendations; meet with medical/psychiatric personnel and take prescribed medications; actively participate in and successfully complete a domestic violence assessment program; and attend all scheduled visits (including virtual visits) with the Children.

[6] The court held a review hearing in April 2023. The court found that Father had not complied with the Children's case plan and that he had “not participated in any services” which would enhance his “parental abilities.” Exhibits Volume III at 149. Father had moved out of state with Mother and was refusing to give DCS an address. Father had refused to attend any in-person visits with the Children and would only meet with them virtually. During those virtual visits, Father would make inappropriate comments to the Children. The court noted that all of the Children had “behavioral diagnoses and significant developmental delays,” and that the school-aged children, except for one, were “extremely behind.” Id. at 150. The court observed that Father was arrested immediately before the review hearing and charged with three counts of possession of child pornography as level 6 felonies.

[7] The court held additional hearings in May and July 2023. Father was incarcerated and appeared in custody by video. The court concluded that Father had not yet complied with the Children's case plan. The court noted that Father had indicated that he was willing to start services now that he was incarcerated “with limited entertainment.” Id. at 155. The Children were progressing well in their placements and their medical and developmental issues were being addressed. The court approved a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption.

[8] On October 13, 2023, DCS filed verified petitions for the involuntary termination of both Father's and Mother's parental relationships with the Children. The court held review hearings on December 5, 2023, and May 2, 2024. Neither Father nor Mother appeared for the hearings. The court found that Father remained incarcerated and that he was participating in Fatherhood Engagement services but had “not made measurable progress due to his hostility” and “being argumentative.” Id. at 157, 161. The court further found that Father had not participated in services to the point that his parental abilities could be enhanced, that he had not visited the Children, and that he remained “very hostile with service providers and DCS.” Id. at 158. The court found that the Children were doing well in their placements and were making strides developmentally, educationally, and medically. The court approved a permanency plan of adoption.

[9] A jury trial in Father's possession of child pornography case was held on August 28, 2024. The jury found Father guilty of three counts of possession of child pornography as level 6 felonies. The court sentenced him to three years, with one year of formal probation. Father was scheduled to be released in October 2024.

[10] The court held a termination factfinding hearing on September 16, 2024.⁶ DCS presented the testimony of Manager Jensen, Director Decker, Family Case Manager Emma Tucker (“FCM Tucker”), home-based caseworker Gretchen Peterson, home-based therapist Irma Raminrez, Family Case Manager Taylor Ellis (“FCM Ellis”), pre-adoptive parents, and Court Appointed Special Advocate Tiffany Clark (“CASA Clark”). Father testified on his own behalf.

[11] Each of the service providers who testified recounted Father's threatening and delusional behavior and his failure to participate in services in the two years since the Children's removal from the home. Despite being represented by counsel, Father continually interrupted and objected to the testimony, accusing multiple witnesses of committing perjury. On numerous occasions, Father rambled on for several minutes while other witnesses were being questioned, requiring the court to repeatedly admonish him. CASA Clark opined that termination of Father's parental rights and adoption by the Children's current placements was in their best interests. She noted that a psychological evaluation obtained as part of Father's criminal case revealed a diagnosis of delusional disorder, and that she similarly found Father to be extremely delusional in her personal interactions with him. She testified that in the two years since the Children's removal the conditions that led to removal had become “worse” because now “[t]here is no housing, no financial stability.” Transcript Volume II at 127. She stated that the Children had made “significant progress” as far as addressing their medical, therapeutic, and educational needs in their pre-adoptive placements. Id.

[12] During his testimony, Father blamed any parenting failures as well as the deplorable home conditions on Mother. He claimed to have notarized admissions from DCS that service providers had faked records indicating that the Children had not been receiving proper medical care, nutrition, or schooling, or that he had committed any criminal acts. Father claimed that upon his release from incarceration, he expected to be making around $25,000 per week doing “part-time trucking” for the “trucking company that [he]” owns. Id. at 134. Father further claimed that prior to his incarceration, he was averaging “about two (2) and a half million dollars, a year, in revenue.” Id. at 148. Father was unable to explain why the Children were living in a trailer in deplorable conditions. At the conclusion of his testimony, Father demanded the court issue “civil warrants” for the DCS witnesses he believed had “lied under oath.” Id. at 158.

[13] On September 23, 2024, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions thereon, and orders terminating the parent-child relationship between Father and the Children. Specifically, the court found that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children'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 the Children; termination of Father's parental rights was in the Children's best interests; and there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, that being adoption.

Discussion

[14] Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. At the time of the termination petition, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) required DCS 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.

(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 70-2024, § 4 (eff. March 11, 2024)).⁷ 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).

[15] 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 Father does 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.

[16] Father challenges the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home will not be remedied. In determining whether the conditions that resulted in the Children'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 the children'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.

[17] The record reveals that the Children were removed from Father's care due to the horrific home conditions and allegations of neglect. The record further reveals that, during the entire course of the CHINS case, Father failed to participate in and/or successfully complete ordered services in order to remedy those conditions. Significantly, Father failed to complete a psychological evaluation or otherwise address his “severe mental health” issues which were evident throughout the CHINS case and were confirmed by a mental health assessment in his criminal case. Appellant's Amended Appendix Volume II at 16. The record demonstrates that Father exhibited extreme delusional behaviors and was combative and aggressive with service providers, refusing to make any efforts to enhance his parental skills. Moreover, the record reveals that during the course of the CHINS case, Father committed domestic abuse and engaged in troubling criminal behavior resulting in his incarceration. Although he attempts to downplay the severity of his mental health issues and behavior, and points to his recent participation in Fatherhood Engagement services during his incarceration and his expressed willingness to engage in additional services upon his release as evidence that conditions will be remedied, the trial court was well within its discretion to balance any recent improvements or claims against Father's habitual patterns of conduct to determine that there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.⁸ 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 the Children's removal and reasons for placement outside Father's care will not be remedied.⁹

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

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother consented to the Children's adoption and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Mother admitted that “one of the [C]hildren had been born with a feeding tube and that Father pulled the feeding tube out against medical advi[c]e.” Exhibits Volume III at 118.

3.   Father “continually” claimed that he was “driving the COVID and Monkey Pox vaccines across the country for the government” and that “there were armed guards listening to his phone calls.” Exhibits Volume III at 118.

4.   Both Father and Mother appeared for the hearing. Father “demanded” that Mother fire her court-appointed attorney “since he would not represent both parents.” Exhibits Volume III at 132. Because Mother insisted that she wanted counsel and “was willing to waive the 60-day fact-finding deadline,” the court conducted the hearing as to Father, adjudicated the Children as CHINS with respect to him, and set a future fact-finding hearing as to Mother.

5.   On January 3, 2032, the court held a subsequent hearing after which it adjudicated Children as CHINS with respect to Mother. In its order, the court found that Father “had been physically abusive” and threatening to Mother and had “carried on a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl” who the family “took on the road” with them and who “Mother says has a mental age of about seven or eight years old. The [C]hildren were in the truck during some of the activity[.]” Exhibits Volume III at 137. The court further found that “Mother's current plan is to try to work things out with [Father].” Id. at 138.

6.   As already noted, Mother consented to the adoption of the Children and therefore, the termination factfinding hearing proceeded only with respect to Father.

7.   Although the trial court's termination order was entered on September 23, 2025, after the effective date of the amended statute, DCS filed the termination petition on October 13, 2023, prior to the effective date. Father cites the prior version of the statute, and he makes no suggestion that the amended version applies to this case.

8.   FCMs Tucker and Ellis each testified that Father failed to make any progress in Fatherhood Engagement services because he remained delusional and threatening and was obsessed with his criminal case and focused on having service providers sent “to jail.” Transcript Volume II at 64. Father “spends a lot of time fixating on what [DCS] did wrong, none of it is focused on how to be a better parent.” Id. at 94.

9.   To the extent Father also challenges the trial court's conclusion that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the Children's well-being, we need not address that argument as the involuntary termination statute is written in the disjunctive and requires proof of only one of the circumstances listed in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). We note that Father does not challenge the trial court's conclusions that termination is in the Children's best interests or that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children. Accordingly, we decline to address the evidence supporting those conclusions.

Brown, Judge.

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