R.W., Appellant-Respondent v. Kids’ Voice of Indiana, Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] R.W. (Mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her minor children, R.W. and D.W. (collectively, the Children).¹ Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In addition to significant cognitive delays, Mother has schizoaffective disorder, a chronic mental illness with symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions, disorganized speech, and mood instability. Mother also suffers from a lack of awareness about her mental health diagnosis and the consequences of not taking her prescribed medications. Since 2015, she has been admitted to St. Vincent's Stress Center at least eight times, many of which were involuntary commitments related to psychotic episodes. While medication assists with stabilizing Mother's psychotic symptoms, it is still “extremely likely that she [will] continue to experience episodes [i]n the future.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 183.

[4] She receives Bureau of Developmental Disability Services (BDDS) due to her developmental disability and has lived in BDDS waiver support group homes throughout her adulthood. She is also on Medicaid, receives support through Damar,² including regular visits with a therapist and a behavioral clinician, and has a home healthcare aide who provides eight hours of assistance Monday through Friday. Mother does not work or drive and has a payee handle her finances. Father too has cognitive delays and requires significant assistance with daily living.

[5] Mother and Father have had three children together. The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved shortly after their first child, De.W., was born in 2016. That same year, De.W., who has extensive special needs, was removed from Mother's care and adjudicated a child in need of services (CHINS). He was never returned to Mother's care, and her parental rights were involuntarily terminated in October 2019.³ In the termination order, the trial court found that Mother's borderline intellectual functioning and poor mental health impaired her ability to make rational decisions. Further, despite three years of services and treatment, Mother had not attained the ability to safely parent De.W. or meet his “extensive special and medical needs.” Exhibits at 230.

[6] Meanwhile, R.W. was born June 27, 2018, and DCS quickly filed a petition alleging that she was a CHINS. The trial court initially allowed R.W. to remain in Mother's care but later removed her on July 20, 2018, and placed her in foster care. R.W. has since remained in foster care, with Mother exercising supervised parenting time until that was stopped at some point for reasons not clear in the record. On October 30, 2018, R.W. was adjudicated a CHINS with Mother's agreement that she would benefit from services to enhance her ability to parent and that coercive intervention was necessary. At the dispositional hearing the next month, Mother was ordered to participate in home-based case management and cooperate with a parent mentor. In November 2019, the CHINS court changed R.W.’s permanency plan from reunification to adoption, noting how long the matter had been open, the lack of progress, and the lack of potential for favorable change.

[7] D.W. was born March 16, 2021. Within a week, DCS filed a CHINS petition, and the court ordered D.W.’s removal from his parents’ care. Following a contested factfinding hearing, D.W. was adjudicated a CHINS in September 2021. The trial court issued detailed findings in the CHINS order. These included in part: D.W. is a medically fragile child with a G-Tube and being cared for in the same foster home as R.W.; Mother is intellectually limited, has mental health issues, and does not understand basic parenting issues; D.W.’s special medical needs would not be met in Mother's care; the status of Mother's home is chaotic and unclean; Mother has safety concerns in her assisted living home; and she recently checked herself into a stress center for four days. At the subsequent dispositional hearing, Mother was ordered to comply with all BDDS services, complete a parenting assessment, and follow all recommendations made by service providers.

[8] On July 21, 2022, at a joint permanency hearing for R.W. and D.W., the trial court continued R.W.’s plan of adoption and changed D.W.’s plan from reunification to adoption. The court noted in its order that Mother had not met or demonstrated the ability to meet the special needs of the Children and that reasonable efforts had been offered to eliminate the need for removal but had proven unsuccessful.

[9] DCS filed the instant petitions to terminate parental rights in December 2021 (R.W.) and August 2022 (D.W.). The parties submitted evidence at the joint termination hearing on April 9 and 11, 2024. Later, on DCS's motion, the trial court reopened the evidence based on new facts that were unavailable at the time of trial. Thus, on July 19, 2024, DCS called three witnesses to testify regarding a mental health crisis that Mother experienced weeks after the last hearing date. The trial court then took the matter under advisement and, on October 8, 2024, issued its order terminating Mother's parental rights with respect to the Children.

[10] The trial court issued extensive findings in its termination order, many of which we reproduce below:

32. Dr. Erika Cornett is a board-certified adult psychiatrist who has been licensed for 26.5 years. Dr. Cornett has worked at the St. Vinent Stress Center (“Stress Center”) ․ for 6.5 years.

33. Dr. Cornett first provided mental health care to Mother at the Stress Center during Mother's hospitalization from July 13, 2021, to July 19, 2021. Mother was hospitalized on an immediate detention ․. Mother was being treated for increasing paranoia, disorganized thoughts, and auditory and visual hallucinations․.

34. During the July 2021 stay ․, Mother's diagnosis was schizophrenia and an unspecified intellectual disability.

35. There were times during the July 2021 stay when Mother had to be restrained in locked seclusion due to her behavior.

36. Over the course of multiple hospitalizations at the Stress Center, Mother's diagnosis changed from schizophrenia to schizoaffective disorder (“SD”). In Mother's case, she was presenting with psychosis which meant her thoughts were out of touch with reality and she had extreme highs and lows of mood.

37. At the time of Mother's discharge from the Stress Center in July 2021, she was prescribed Clozaril, which is an anti-psychotic medication․. Clozaril is used after multiple other medications have been tried unsuccessfully.

38. The July 2021 hospitalization was related to Mother not taking her mental health medications as prescribed․.

39. Quentin Powell is an IMPD officer. On May 6, 2022, Officer Powell was dispatched to [Mother's home]․. Officer Powell observed Mother to be upset and belligerent. Mother was not making coherent sense.

40. Based on Officer Powell's observations and what he learned at the scene, Officer Powell determined that Mother should be placed on an immediate detention ․.

41. Dr. Cornett again treated Mother at the Stress Center in May 2022 after being admitted on an immediate detention. At that time Mother was experiencing paranoia and suspiciousness along with auditory hallucinations.

42. During the May 2022 stay at the Stress Center Mother again had to be restrained or secluded. Mother had been off her medication for a longer period of time prior to this stay which led to more suspicion, paranoia, and aggressive behavior compared to the earlier stay. At one point during the May 2022 stay, Mother physically assaulted another patient.

43. It was the opinion of Dr. Cornett that with each episode of psychosis a person experiences it can be harder and harder to get that person back to a stable baseline․.

***

46. IMPD Officer Kenneth Graham was called to St. Vincent hospital for a well check on February 20, 2023. When he arrived on scene, he found Mother in what appeared to be a mental crisis. Mother was actively screaming and yelling at people outside of the hospital․.

47. Officer Graham was able to convince Mother to go into the hospital so that she could get help. As they went into the hospital Mother began to yell at other people in the waiting room. As Officer Graham helped to get Mother into the patient care area, she was yelling obscenities at the hospital staff and saying that they had kidnapped her children․.

48. Based on Mother's behavior, Officer Graham determined Mother should be placed on an immediate detention. Officer Graham believed that Mother had not taken medication, was a threat of harm to herself or others, and was in need of hospitalization.

49. Noelle Carter has been a psychiatric nurse practitioner at the Stress Center since 2018. Ms. Carter holds an advanced practice nursing license with prescriptive authority․.

50. Ms. Carter provided mental health care to Mother in the spring of 2023, when Mother was a patient at the Stress Center. During this period Mother was admitted to the medical psychiatric unit on February 21, 2023 on a police immediate detention order.

51. At the time of admission on February 21, 2023, Mother was experiencing acute psychosis. An acute psychosis impacts a person's ability to appreciate reality along with auditory and/or visual hallucinations. At the time of admission, Ms. Carter considered Mother to be a danger to herself or others and unable to make her own decisions.

52. After being admitted on an immediate detention, Mother could not leave the Stress Center on her own.

53. During the February 2023 admission, based on Mother's history and presentation, Ms. Carter diagnosed Mother with SD. SD is a chronic mental illness with components of schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. A patient with SD will experience hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized speech along with an acute mood disorder which affects their ability to function for an extended period of time.

54. During Mother's time at the Stress Center in February 2023, Mother was experiencing active hallucinations, active delusional thoughts, and disorganized behavior which severely impacted her ability to function.

55. SD can be controlled through medication. Mother was prescribed to take the medication clozapine[,which] can help reduce the symptoms of psychosis and aid in mood stabilization.

56. After being admitted to the Stress Center on February 21, 2023, Mother was discharged on March 3, 2023. At that time, Mother was taking her medication, her mood had stabilized, and her active hallucinations had resolved.

57. Ms. Carter believes that since she started working at the Stress Center in August 2018, Mother has been admitted for mental health issues five or six times.

58. Dr. Brian Quinn is a board-certified psychiatrist who has worked at the Stress Center since 2015. Since Dr. Quinn has been at the Stress Center, Mother has been admitted to the Stress Center seven times. Dr. Quinn also provided care to Mother during her February/March 2023 admission.

59. For Mother's stay [ ] in February/March 2023, Mother was first admitted [ ] for medical needs. While being transported to St. Vincent and in the ER, Mother received a significant amount of ketamine to manage her agitation and aggression. Mother had to be first medically monitored while coming off that medication before she could be transferred to the Stress Center.

60. During Mother's admission in February 2023, Mother required physical restraints on two separate occasions due to her behaviors.

***

62. Dr. Quinn opined that the clozapine Mother was taking is a medication reserved for patients with “treatment resistant schizophrenia”, which means that at least two or more medications have failed to appropriately treat the symptoms of schizophrenia. When Dr. Quinn has a patient being prescribed clozapine, it is meaningful to him that the patient has had a degree of symptoms that have been significant enough to require that medication.

63. It was the opinion of Dr. Quinn that when Mother was admitted to the Stress Center under an emergency detention, she would have been suffering from a grave disability and expressing signs that she was a danger to herself of others. A grave disability means that Mother's psychiatric symptoms were of such a nature that she could not provide for her basic needs like food, clothing, or shelter.

64. Dr. Quinn also provided psychiatric care while Mother was admitted [ ] on an emergency detention in July 2021.

65. It is concerning to Dr. Quinn that Mother does not believe she has a mental health diagnosis and that she believes the only negative aspect of not taking clozapine was that it was hard for Mother to get to sleep.

66. Dr. Quinn opined that it is important for a patient to have insight and understanding regarding the circumstances that led to their hospitalization. It is his opinion that a lack of insight into those circumstances would be a predictor that a person would be likely to repeat those events.

67. Dr. Quinn opined that Mother's lack of insight into her condition is a symptom of the mental health disorder itself. For many individuals with a severe mental illness like schizophrenia, that in itself can be a core symptom of the disease.

68. Based off Dr. Quinn's assessments of Mother, Mother would be unable to safely take care of two young children with special needs while she was admitted to the Stress Center under an emergency detention.

69. Dr. Quinn opined that ․ schizophrenia is a lifelong condition where a patient is expected to experience relapses and remissions․. Based on the number of hospitalizations Mother has experienced, it is the opinion of Dr. Quinn that Mother would continue to experience episodes in the future. These periods of remission and relapse are difficult to predict.

70. Regina Parish is a service provider who has worked with Mother beginning in May 2019. Ms. Parrish provided case work and supervised visitation for Mother.

71. During a supervised visit with D.W. in April 2023, Ms. Parish observed Mother to have aggressive and unstable behavior. Ms. Parish was concerned that Mother might hurt her at this time. Ms. Parish brought in an agency therapist to try to calm Mother down. Ms. Parish was concerned for her own safety and the safety of D.W.

72. A virtual permanency hearing took place for R.W. and D.W. on May 4, 2023. The CHINS court noted in its order from that day that “throughout almost the entire hearing mother was cursing and screaming so that she had to be muted.” Ms. Parrish was with Mother supervising a visit with D.W. prior to that hearing. Ms. Parrish offered to watch D.W. while Mother participated in the hearing in another room.

73. While Ms. Parrish was playing with D.W., she heard Mother scream out very loudly from the other room. Ms. Parrish gave D.W. to another employee of the agency and went to check on Mother. Ms. Parrish found Mother screaming and cussing at the virtual hearing. Ms. Parrish would have had concerns for D.W.’s safety if he was alone in Mother's care when she acted like this due to the way she lost control.

74. Based on Ms. Parrish's long time working with Mother, Ms. Parrish could not recommend that Mother's children could live with her on her own at this point.

75. As a long-term member of Mother's child and family team, Ms. Parrish does not believe that there are any additional services that DCS could have offered which would have allowed Mother to have her children in her care.

76. Ms. Parrish believes that the team was clear with their expectations regarding having her children in her care. Ms. Parrish last worked with Mother in August 2023.

77. [Children are in the same foster home. R.W. was placed there since the age of two, and D.W. since May 2021.]

78. Foster Mother has observed R.W. to have extreme tantrums. R.W. sees a therapist for speech and occupational issues. R.W. also suffers from chromosomal deletion, general delay and integration delay․.

***

81. R.W. currently sees eight different medical providers to address her physical and mental health. Foster Mother must remember and retain a large number of specific instructions from providers regarding all the different needs R.W. has on a daily basis․.

82. Foster Mother has learned to identify when R.W. is going to have a temper tantrum and is able to help redirect R.W. before the behavior becomes extreme. Foster Mother has also found that maintaining a very routine-based homelife can help alleviate some of R.W.’s behaviors․.

83. On occasion, teachers at R.W.’s school have asked Foster Mother to keep R.W. home from school if her usual teachers are not working that day. This is because R.W.’s behaviors at school can require two trained teachers to help her during the day.

84. Foster Mother described raising R.W. as overwhelming and constant. She said, “you just don't get a break”. It can be exhausting․.

85. D.W. is three years old and requires a feeding tube․.

86. D.W. also can sometimes “silently aspirate.” That means that when D.W. drinks thin liquids they can go into his lungs without him choking or making sounds․.

87. D.W. also has a large team of medical providers ․ to address his special needs including a kidney specialist, a developmental pediatrician, a neurologist and therapists.

88. Mother has attended medical appointments for the children while Foster Mother was present. After observing Mother at those appointments, Foster Mother would be concerned for Mother's ability to give the doctors the correct information about what the kids are experiencing at home and their medical history. Foster Mother has found it to be literally a matter of life and death for her to answer the doctor's questions in order to make sure the children get the proper treatment.

***

90. Foster Mother loves these children and feels tied to them completely. She and her husband wish to adopt both children.

91. Foster Mother's patience and willingness to love and accept these children is notable. It is clear to the Court that Foster Mother has dedicated a great amount of time and emotional energy to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of these children.

92. Mother testified that she does not have any clue or thoughts as to why D.W. is not currently in her care, and it is a question she has been asking for years. Mother also had no understanding of why R.W. was not currently in her care.

93. Mother believes D.W. would need no special care if he were in her home, and she does not believe there would be any challenges in parenting D.W.

94. Mother also testified that she would face no challenges in parenting R.W. if she were in Mother's care.

***

97. Mother has a caregiver named Brittany who takes her to the grocery store [and] to doctor appointments and makes sure she takes her medication. Brittany works with Mother eight hours a day. Brittany's services are paid for through funds Mother receives from the State of Indiana.

98. Mother believes that she does not have any mental health challenges. Mother is unsure if she has ever been diagnosed with any mental health illnesses.

99. Mother does not believe she has schizophrenia. Mother testified that schizophrenia has no effect on her daily life. Mother also believes that she has no learning disabilities.

100. Mary Rembusch is a licensed mental health counselor at Damar who has treated Mother intermittently since Mother was eighteen years old. Ms. Rembusch most recently started working with Mother again in 2022. In addition to Ms. Rembusch,

Mother works with a behaviorist through Damar. Mother meets with her Damar team weekly.

101. According to Ms. Rembusch, Mother has become more stable in the last year and is using supports to care for herself.

102. While Ms. Rembusch helps Mother through her mental health challenges, Ms. Rembusch is unaware of R.W.’s special needs. Ms. Rembusch was also unaware how many times Mother had been hospitalized or that Mother was unable to leave the hospital on those times when she was immediately detained.

103. On one occasion in 2022, Ms. Rembusch recommended to Mother that she should go to the hospital because she was experiencing hallucinations. It was Ms. Rembusch's concern at that time that Mother may possibly continue to decompensate if she didn't go to the hospital at that time.

104. Sussette Lawson is a behaviorist who provides services to Mother through a [BDDS] waiver. Ms. Lawson has worked with Mother for eight to nine years.

105. Ms. Lawson could not provide any opinion as to whether or not the children would be safe in Mother's care if she had another psychotic break, and she was unaware of any extra effort that would have to go into parenting D.W. and R.W.

106. After working with Mother for eight to nine years, Ms. Lawson's treatment plan for Mother still addresses aggressive behavior, aggressive behavior towards herself and socially offensive behavior.

***

108. All of Mother's involuntary hospitalizations have taken place while she has been receiving the services of her BDDS team.

109. Jessica Downer is the DCS Family Case Manager supervisor responsible for Mother's CHINS case. Ms. Downer has supervised this case since October 2022.

110. During Ms. Downer's time on the case, she has been unable to recommend that Mother progress to unsupervised visits with her children due to Mother's lack of understanding regarding her mental health needs and her intellectual disability.

111. Ms. Downer does not believe that Mother could safely meet the special needs of her children if they were in her care without DCS involvement.

112. Dustin Rushing is the court appointed GAL for D.W. and R.W. Mr. Rushing has been part of the case since April 2022.

113. Mr. Rushing believes that the termination of the parent child relationship is in the best interests of D.W. and R.W., and that they should be adopted by [their foster parents].

114. Mr. Rushing could not think of any additional services or something that could change to make him feel safe or comfortable placing these children back in Mother's care.

115. On April 27, 2024 and after two days of the trial on this matter, IMPD Officer Travis McColley was dispatched to Mother's residence for a disturbance call. After assessing Mother and the situation at her residence, Officer McColley determined that Mother should be again placed on an immediate detention and transported to St. Vincent.

116. According to Ms. Erica Brown, a service provider for Mother, Mother said that she gave birth to five children while she was at the Stress Center in April 2024. Mother did not give birth to any children while she was at the Stress Center in April 2024.

117. Mother has failed to resolve the issues that led to her children being removed from her care despite sufficient time and services. Mother's mental health challenges and cognitive delays have also kept the children from being returned to her care. There is no indication that more time will allow Mother to remedy those issues. It is not in the best interests of D.W. and R.W. to further delay their permanency. Mother has had consistent services from DCS and BDDS in place for many years, and unfortunately those services are unable to remedy Mother's cognitive delays and mental health challenges that are keeping her children out of her care.

118. Mother's repeated involuntary hospitalizations are proof of her inability to safely and appropriately care for D.W. and R.W. When Mother is placed on an emergency detention she is a danger to herself and others, and unable to make decisions in her own best interest. At those times, she would be unable to safely care for her children and there is no indication she would be able to make safe choices to ensure their care by other people when she is in that state. Continuation of the parent child relationship will prese[n]t a threat to the safety and wellbeing of the children.

119. Mother's involvement with DCS began in late 2016 when her fi[r]st child De.W. was found to be a CHINS. The findings in the order terminating the parental relationship between De.W. and Mother demonstrate that Mother has been suffering from the same issues for at least eight years. Even with the ongoing and positive support of her BDDS team, Mother is unfortunately still not able to safely and appropriately care for her children. Although the court is convinced that Mother loves her children, the court has found no credible evidence to support the idea that more services and or more time could change Mother's abilities to care for her children.

120. Both children have significant medical and behavioral needs that require ongoing and substantial attention. Mother continues to lack the capacity to appropriately meet those needs, including her repeated unavailability to parent during times of involuntary

hospitalizations. Mother's mental health challenges cannot be cured and there is no indication she would ever be able to safely meet the medical and behavioral needs of her children.

121. DCS and the GAL have no safety concerns regarding the children's continued placement in the care of and adoption by Foster Parents. The children are placed with Foster Parents in a pre-adoptive home. The children are bonded to Foster Parents and are thriving in their care․.

122. Adoption is a satisfactory plan for the future care and treatment of R.W. and D.W. Foster Mother has clearly demonstrated that she is willing to truly dedicate herself to the nearly unending job of keeping these children safe and healthy․.

123. Termination of the parent child relationship between R.W. and D.W. and Mother is in the best interests of the children. Termination of the parental relationship will allow D.W. and R.W. to be adopted into a safe, stable home where their medical and developmental needs will be consistently met, and that is in their best interest.

Appendix Vol. II at 41-49 (some names altered to maintain confidentiality).

[11] Mother now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[12] 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.

[13] 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). 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). Further, we must accept any unchallenged findings as true. See Matter of To.R., 177 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992)), trans. denied.

Discussion & Decision

[14] Although parental rights are of constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In addition, a court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[15] Under the statutory authority applicable at the time the termination petitions were filed,⁴ 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[.]

Ind. Code § 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 the Children's best interests. I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C).

[16] Mother initially challenges the trial court's determination that continuation of the parent-child relationship would pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the Children. Her argument is short. She directs us only to Finding 118, which as set forth above provides:

Mother's repeated involuntary hospitalizations are proof of her inability to safely and appropriately care for D.W. and R.W. When Mother is placed on an emergency detention she is a danger to herself and others, and unable to make decisions in her own best interest. At those times, she would be unable to safely care for her children and there is no indication she would be able to make safe choices to ensure their care by other people when she is in that state. Continuation of the parent child relationship will prese[n]t a threat to the safety and wellbeing of the children.

Appendix Vol. II at 48 (names altered).

[17] Mother argues that Finding 118 is clearly erroneous because it “completely ignored clear testimony regarding Mother's care team provided by BDDS and Medicaid.” Appellant's Brief at 19. Mother's arugment relies exclusively on the testimonies of the three witnesses she called at the evidentiary hearing. Mother notes that Brittany Davidson, who assists her eight hours per weekday, testified that she believed Mother would be able to remember to administer D.W.’s medications. She also notes that Sussette Lawson, Mother's behavioral clinician through Damar for eight or nine years, opined that Mother could care for the Children with the supports in place through BDDS, Medicaid, her church, and family and without assistance from DCS. And Mother directs us to the testimony of Mary Rembusch, her therapist through Damar, that Mother understands the importance of following her medication regimen.

[18] In sum, Mother argues:

The caregivers that knew Mother best unequivocally testified that Mother had the support around her that could deal with any issue arising from future hospitalizations or issues related to Mother's schizophrenia diagnosis. The juvenile court erred in ignoring this substantial evidence that Mother was prepared to care for her Children with all the resources at Mother's disposal, which Mother would have at Mother's disposal.

Id. at 20.

[19] Contrary to Mother's assertions on appeal, the trial court did not ignore these witnesses. It made multiple findings addressing each witness's testimony. Notably, however, the trial court found that Rembusch was unaware of R.W.’s special needs, unaware of the number of times Mother had been hospitalized, and unaware that Mother had been involuntarily hospitalized. With respect to Lawson's testimony, the trial court found significant that Lawson testified she did not know whether the Children would be in danger if they were in Mother's care during a psychotic break; that Lawson was unaware of any extra effort needed to parent the Children; and that after working with Mother for eight or nine years, Lawson acknowledged that Mother's treatment plan still addressed aggressive behavior and socially offensive behavior. The trial court also observed that Mother's involuntary hospitalizations had all taken place while she was receiving services from her BDDS team.

[20] It is evident that the trial court did not find credible any testimony from these witnesses suggesting that Mother would be able to safely parent the Children, as these witnesses lacked a full understanding of Mother's mental health struggles and the Children's significant behavioral and medical needs, which require ongoing and substantial attention. The trial court also made extensive other unchallenged findings establishing that the Children would not be safe in Mother's care during psychotic episodes, which are unpredictable and likely to continue to recur  ⁵ Mother's arguments to the contrary are nothing but a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Accordingly, she has failed to establish that the trial court's threat determination was clearly erroneous.

[21] Because I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, we need not address the trial court's additional conclusion that the conditions resulting in the Children's continued placement outside of Mother's home would not be remedied. See A.D.S. v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[22] Finally, Mother challenges the trial court's determination that termination is in the Children's best interests. She asserts that the trial court based this determination solely on the fact that termination would allow the Children to be adopted into a better home.

[23] When making a best-interests determination, a trial court must look at the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, subordinate the parent's interests to those of the child, with the child's need for permanency being a central consideration. See Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. Further, “the right of parents to raise their children should not be terminated solely because there is a better home available for the children.” In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1151 (Ind. 2016). This is because termination is intended as a last resort, available when all other reasonable efforts have failed. Id. at 1151-52.

[24] In this case, the trial court did not simply find that the foster parents offered a better home for the Children. The court found that placing the Children in Mother's home would threaten their safety and well-being and that Mother was unable to safely and appropriately care for the Children “[e]ven with the ongoing and positive support of her BDDS team[.]” Appendix Vol. II at 48. Mother's inability to care for the Children was especially true given the Children's extensive special needs, which are detailed in the trial court's findings, and Mother's recurring psychotic episodes.⁶ It is with this backdrop that the trial court determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Children's best interests because termination “will allow [the Children] to be adopted into a safe, stable home where their medical and developmental needs will be consistently met[.]” Id. at 49. The totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that all other reasonable efforts have failed and that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the Children.

[25] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   D.S. (Father) signed consents for the Children to be adopted and thus does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Damar provides services for individuals with autism and developmental disabilities.

3.   Father consented to De.W. being adopted.

4.   Our legislature made extensive changes to Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4, which became effective March 11, 2024. DCS filed the petitions in December 2021 and August 2022, under the prior version of the statute.

5.   In fact, after the factfinding hearing in April 2024, where Mother's witnesses testified, Mother experienced another episode, which led to police involvement and Mother being taken in the middle of the night to the Stress Center under an immediate detention. This event resulted in the trial court reopening the evidence. The IMPD officer who responded to the disturbance call at Mother's residence testified that he encountered her sitting on the living room floor “sweating profusely” and “rocking back and forth.” Transcript Vol. 3 at 58. The room was in disarray, with furniture thrown around and a broken lamp. After speaking with Mother and the caregiver, who had called police, the officer detained Mother, believing that she, at the time, was a danger to herself or others, had failed to take her medications, and was experiencing hallucinations, manic depression, or some other form of mental illness.

6.   The GAL testified that he believed termination was in the Children's best interests due, in part, to Mother's lack of recognition of the Children's special needs, which would put their safety at risk in her care, as well as her lack of awareness of her own mental health issues.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Brown and Tavitas concur. Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.