IN RE: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.J. (Minor Child); D.M. (Mother) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] D.M. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with her son, J.J. (“J.J.”). Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination, we affirm the trial court's judgment.¹

[2] We affirm.

Issue

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

Facts

[3] The evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment reveal that Mother and Father are the parents of J.J., who was born in June 2019. In August 2022, DCS received a report alleging that three-year-old J.J. was a victim of neglect and abuse. A DCS assessment worker attempted to contact Mother multiple times but was unable to reach her.

[4] The following month, September 2022, DCS received a report that a domestic violence incident had occurred at Mother's home in the presence of J.J. Another DCS assessment worker immediately went to Mother's home and learned that Mother's boyfriend had assaulted Mother's mother and that Mother's mother had been taken to the hospital emergency room. Mother expressed fear for her life, and she and J.J. were transported to a domestic violence shelter.

[5] After Mother had been at the shelter for a few days, Mother spoke with a DCS assessment worker and told the worker that she planned to stay at the shelter with J.J. However, two weeks later, Mother left the shelter and moved in with Father because her home did not have electricity. The DCS assessment worker eventually found Mother and asked her to participate in an informal adjustment.

[6] Mother entered into the informal adjustment in October 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the informal adjustment, Mother agreed to abstain from the use of illegal controlled substances and to submit to random drug screens. Mother also agreed to participate in intensive family preservation services with the goal of assessing J.J.’s safety in the home. Mother began participating in family preservation services in October 2022.

[7] One month later, in November 2022, Mother testified positive for methamphetamine. In December 2022, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl. Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl throughout January 2023. That same month, Mother, who acknowledged that she had difficulty abstaining from the use of drugs, entered into an inpatient substance abuse treatment program at Volunteers of America (“VOA”). J.J. accompanied Mother to VOA. While participating in the VOA program, Mother was diagnosed with a substance use disorder.

[8] Mother and J.J. stayed at VOA for one week but then left the program against medical advice. A DCS case manager eventually located Mother and J.J. three days later. At that time, in January 2023, the case manager removed J.J. from Mother's care and filed a petition alleging that J.J. was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine in February and March 2023.

[9] The trial court held a CHINS factfinding hearing in April 2023, and Mother admitted that J.J. was a CHINS. In early May 2023, Mother returned to the substance abuse treatment program at VOA but left the program shortly thereafter because her mother was ill.

[10] Also, in May 2023, the trial court entered a dispositional order that required Mother to: (1) abstain from the use of illegal controlled substances; (2) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; (3) participate in parenting education classes; (4) complete a domestic violence assessment and participate in all recommended services; and (5) attend scheduled visits with J.J. In addition, in May 2023, Mother signed an agreement to participate in the Family Recovery Court, which provides support to parents with active CHINS cases.

[11] Although Mother initially began to participate in services, she also continued to test positive for methamphetamine. In June 2023, Mother attempted to return to the VOA substance abuse program, but VOA staff would not admit Mother to the program until she had completed a detox program. VOA held a spot in its program so that Mother could enter the program following her detox; however, Mother did not return to VOA.

[12] Throughout July 2023, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. During that time, Mother also stopped participating in services. In September 2023, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother from the Family Recovery Court program.

[13] In October 2023, Mother voluntarily withdrew from the Family Recovery Court. Also, in October 2023, the trial court found Mother in indirect contempt for failing to abide by the CHINS dispositional order. Specifically, the trial court found that Mother had continued to use illegal controlled substances, had failed to participate in services, and had missed scheduled parenting time sessions. The trial court sentenced Mother to thirty days of incarceration in the county jail but stayed the sentence on the condition that Mother abide by the CHINS dispositional order.

[14] In January 2024, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. In April 2024, Mother began participating in services. Specifically, Mother began sporadically attending the Meridian Health Services NEST program, which includes individual therapy, group therapy, and home-based casework. Despite her participation in services, Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine.

[15] On May 1, 2024, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental relationship with J.J. Mother twice tested positive for methamphetamine in May 2024 after DCS had filed the petition to terminate her parental rights. In June 2024, Mother began regularly attending the NEST program.

[16] During the July and August 2024 termination hearing, the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, J.J.’s therapist (“J.J.’s therapist”), who had been seeing J.J. weekly for over a year, testified that J.J. had experienced trauma and needed help regulating his emotions. According to J.J.’s therapist, J.J. had made progress but still needed individualized attention for social and emotional delays. J.J.’s therapist also testified that J.J. had delayed verbal skills and was behind academically.

[17] Also, at the hearing, the CASA (“the CASA”) testified that although she believed that Mother loved J.J., Mother had not been able to commit to J.J. as a parent and stop using drugs. According to the CASA, J.J., who needed stability, was in a “child-centered ․ loving home,” where the foster parents were focused on him and his needs. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 176). According to the CASA, if J.J. needed therapy, the foster parents would make sure that he got it. The CASA further testified that termination was in J.J.’s best interests. In addition, the CASA testified that “allowing [J.J.] to be adopted and settled, and get his feet under him in life; good steady ground, he deserves that.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 177).

[18] Following the hearing, in August 2024, the trial court issued a detailed ten-page order that terminated Mother's parental relationship with J.J. In its order, the trial court specifically found that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in J.J.’s removal would not be remedied. In support of this finding, the trial court noted that “Mother ha[d] consistently had a lack of compliance or [a] reluctance to participate in services focused on returning [J.J.] to her home.” (App. Vol. 3 at 125). The trial court further noted that “[e]ven after the Petition to terminate her rights [had been] filed (May 1, 2024), Mother had two (2) reported positive drug screens․” (App. Vol. 3 at 125).

[19] In addition, the trial court found that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in J.J.’s best interests. In support of this finding, the trial court noted that J.J. needed permanency. The trial court further specifically noted that “[d]ue to the totality of the evidence of [J.J.]’s removal, [J.J.]’s continued removal due to Mother's ongoing substance abuse issues, [Mother's] noncompliance with DCS services, ․ [and the] CASA's recommendation, termination [was] in the best interests of the child.” (App. Vol. 3 at 126).

[20] Mother now appeals.

Decision

[21] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental relationship with J.J. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. K.T.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). However, the law provides for termination of that right when parents are unwilling or unable to meet their parental responsibilities. Bester v. Lake County Office of Family and Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parents but to protect their children. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied.

[22] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229. Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment. Id.

[23] Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 provides, in relevant 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:

* * * * *

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4.² If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231.

[24] Where, as here, the trial court's order contains specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we engage in a two-tiered review. In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and then, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences to be drawn therefrom that support them. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the resulting judgment. Id.

[25] In addition, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court[ ] only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id.

[26] Mother first argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in J.J.’s removal or the reasons for placement outside Mother's home will not be remedied. We disagree.

[27] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child's removal or placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). We first identify the conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. The second step requires trial courts to judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing any recent improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. Habitual conduct may include the parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and a lack of adequate housing and employment. A.D.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The trial court may also consider services offered to the parent by DCS and the parent's response to those services as evidence of whether conditions will be remedied. Id.

[28] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that DCS removed J.J. from Mother because of Mother's drug use. Our review of the evidence further reveals that Mother did not successfully complete any services designed to address her drug use. Further, Mother continued to test positive for several illegal controlled substances, including methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl, throughout the pendency of the CHINS proceedings. Indeed, Mother twice tested positive for methamphetamine after DCS had filed the petition to terminate her parental relationship with J.J. This evidence supports the trial court's finding that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in J.J.’s removal or the reasons for placement outside Mother's home will not be remedied.

[29] Mother also argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that termination is in J.J.’s best interests. In determining whether termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests, 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. In addition, a child's need for permanency is a central consideration in determining that child's best interests. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009), reh'g denied. Further, the testimony of a service provider may support a finding that termination is in a child's best interests. McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family and Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[30] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that at the time of the termination hearing, five-year-old J.J., who had been removed from Mother's home when he was three and one-half years old, was in a loving home with foster parents who were focused on him and his needs. In addition, the CASA testified that termination was in J.J.’s best interests. The testimony of the CASA, as well as the other evidence previously discussed, supports the trial court's finding that termination was in J.J.’s best interests. There is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Mother's parental relationship with J.J.

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court also terminated J.J.’s father's (“Father”) parental relationship with J.J. However, Father is not participating in this appeal.

2.   The legislature amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 effective March 11, 2024. Because DCS filed the termination petition in this case on May 1, 2024, the amended version of the statute applies here.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur. Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.