IN RE: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.P. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] B.M. (“Mother”) and G.P. (“Father”) appeal the Dearborn Circuit Court's order terminating their parental rights to their child, A.P. Mother and Father have filed separate briefs, but both argue that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of their parental rights is in A.P.’s best interests.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother gave birth to A.P. in January 2015, and, on some date after her birth, Father established paternity to A.P.¹ The Parents have a lengthy history with DCS. And DCS's involvement in A.P.’s life began shortly after she was born. Specifically, DCS received a report that A.P. had been born exposed to amphetamines, and, therefore, it filed a petition alleging that A.P. was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). A.P. was removed from Parents’ care for several months, but reunification was achieved in December 2017. Thereafter, the court terminated the CHINS case.

[4] In August 2018, DCS investigated a report that Mother was using methamphetamine and that Parents were neglecting A.P. and her two siblings. DCS attempted to resolve the issues through an informal adjustment, but Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine and neither parent was compliant with services. Further, Father admitted he was unable to care for all three children at the same time. Ex. Vol. 2, p. 104. Therefore, DCS filed a second CHINS petition in January 2019 and removed A.P. from Parents’ home shortly thereafter. During a trial home visit in June 2020, Father assaulted Mother. Father was arrested and incarcerated. Ex. Vol. 2, p. 121. A.P. was reunified with Mother in February 2022, and the court closed the CHINS case.

[5] In June 2022, DCS filed a third petition alleging that A.P. was a CHINS. The petition alleged that Mother failed to supervise A.P. and her siblings and, while they were unsupervised, the children destroyed property and took property from neighbors. DCS also alleged that Mother had used drugs, left the children with inappropriate caregivers, and operated a vehicle on a suspended license while a child was not restrained in the vehicle. In addition, A.P. reported that her brother had stabbed her with a needle he found in the bathroom. Shortly after DCS filed the CHINS petition, A.P. was removed from Mother's care. Father was unable to care for A.P. due to his incarceration for Level 6 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor battery.

[6] On August 1, the juvenile court held the CHINS fact-finding hearing. The court found that A.P. was a CHINS due to Mother's neglect and Father's incarceration. In its dispositional order, the court ordered Parents to participate in numerous services, including substance abuse assessments, random drug screening, supervised visitation, counseling, and home-based services.

[7] Because Parents never substantially complied with or benefitted from the court-ordered reunification services, A.P. was not returned to either Parent's care. During the CHINS proceedings, Mother was found in contempt because she failed to participate in drug screens and home-based services. Mother continued to use illegal substances and lacked stable housing. After Father was released from incarceration, he was unable to find stable housing and lived in his vehicle for over a year. And Father is a registered sex offender.

[8] DCS filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court granted Parents’ jointly filed motions to continue the fact-finding hearing. And that hearing commenced on August 28, 2024.

[9] When A.P. was placed with her foster family in July 2022, she was eight years old. She had a fungal infection and worms. A.P. also had severe dental issues and had to have several of her teeth pulled. A.P.’s reading and math skills were well below her grade level. And when A.P. was initially placed with her foster parents, she would hoard food and rummage through garbage cans.

[10] DCS presented evidence that A.P. suffers from PTSD because Mother's boyfriend, whom she later married, physically abused A.P. A.P.’s therapist testified that A.P. needs a “highly structured” environment because she “needs to know what she can do and ․ to be told things in advance so she can prepare.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 139. The court appointed special advocate (“CASA”) agreed that A.P. “needs a lot of structure.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 53. As of the date of the fact-finding hearing, nine-year-old A.P. had been placed in foster care for half of her life. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 180. And A.P. had been living with her foster family for approximately two years.

[11] Both Parents progressed in their participation in services in the months leading up to the fact-finding hearing. Mother was compliant with drug screens and was participating in individual therapy. However, Mother struggled during visitations when all of the children were present, especially with discipline. Visit supervisors described the visits as chaotic.

[12] Father participated in visitation with A.P. and completed a substance abuse assessment. Father's drug screens were negative for illegal substances. After he was released from incarceration, Father obtained employment. The visitation supervisor testified that Father was well prepared for visits and appropriately parented A.P. and her siblings during the visits. Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 91-92. She also believed that Father would be able to provide the structured environment that A.P. needs. Id. at 102. Father participated in counseling and completed the Batterer's Intervention Program. Id. at 119. Father successfully completed his home-based case work goals in June 2024. Id. at 171.

[13] The family case manager agreed that both Mother and Father had achieved “some stability” in the months leading up to the fact-finding hearing but testified that termination of their parental rights was in A.P.’s best interests. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 249. The CASA believed that Parents’ attitudes had improved and they had shown “some improvement” in their parenting skills. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 55. The CASA stated that Parents love A.P., and she loves them. Id. at 63. But the CASA also testified that A.P. should remain in her foster parents’ care and Mother's and Father's parental rights should be terminated. Id. at 58-59.

[14] The juvenile court issued its order terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights on October 8, 2024. Particularly relevant to this appeal, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

25. The Child's therapist, Amanda Miller, testified that the Child suffers from PTSD relating to the trauma she sustained in the home of the Mother where Mother's then boyfriend, [R.W.], had been abusive to her. Namely throwing her across the room and punching her in the stomach. The Therapist is concerned that Mother couldn't keep the child safe because Mother married [R.W.] one year after the child was removed from the home. During therapy sessions when the child was asked to draw pictures of her family, she only draws pictures of her foster family as her family.

26. The Child has been placed in [her current] foster home since July 13 of 2022 and continues to remain there. [N.B.], Foster Father, and his wife [K.B.], are both registered nurses and have one biological daughter of the same age as [Child] in the home. Foster Father testified that [Child] had worms, severe dental issues, hoarded food and rummaged through garbage cans in the home when first placed with them. Foster Father testified that he had to sleep on the floor outside the Child's bedroom for many weeks due to the Child being fearful of someone entering the room. Since then the Child has been in ongoing therapy and is doing very well as they continue to provide her with a safe and stable home.

***

29. Mother, ․ testified that she is now sober, and that she is able to care for [Child]. The Court does not find her testimony credible for two reasons: Mother testified in her two prior CHINS cases that she was sober and would remain so, only to have her children removed yet again for the same behaviors of addiction and neglect of her children; Mother married [R.W.], the boyfriend that abused [Child] while in Mother's care a year after [Child's] removal from Mother.

30. Father, ․ testified that he is no longer incarcerated, has housing, and believes that he can care for the child as he had testified to in his previous 2 CHINS cases. The court does not find his testimony credible.

***

40. Former service providers and other witnesses testified that the parents have made progress, but the Court can “disregard the efforts ․ made only shortly before termination and to weigh more heavily [a parent's] history of conduct prior to those efforts.” The parents’ habitual patterns of conduct indicate that there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation for the Child and that there is a reasonable probability that their behaviors will never change. Indeed, a parent's habitual unwillingness or lack of commitment to address the issues affecting their parenting “demonstrates the requisite reasonable probability that the removal conditions will not change.”

41. Thus, the evidence of Parents’ lengthy pattern of inability, unwillingness, or lack of commitment to address parenting problems and to cooperate with services, failing to cooperate with rehabilitation efforts, and otherwise failing to follow the parent participation orders, demonstrates the requisite reasonable probability that Parents will not remedy the reasons for Child's retention in foster care.

***

43. The continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to a Child's well-being when the evidence shows the adults are engaging in ongoing destructive and dangerous behavior without any serious signs of improvement. In this case, the Child's physical and mental health was seriously endangered by the parents’ actions or lack of action. Additionally, Child's therapist, Amanda Miller, testified that based on working with Child, the Child was in fear and identified trauma in the home where she was abused by her Stepfather.

44. Neither actual physical abuse nor a physical threat to a Child is required to find that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child's wellbeing. The feral state of the child at the time of detention is evidence of the danger to the child. Termination is proper when the evidence shows that the emotional and physical development of a child is threatened. The “threat” element can also be established from evidence of a parental disorder, lack of ability or interest to parent, being uncooperative in treatment, and being less than truthful.

45. The Father argues that he was incarcerated during a significant portion of the case and required time to reestablish himself. Our Courts have held that where “[i]ndividuals who pursue criminal activity run the risk of being denied the opportunity to develop positive and meaningful relationships with their children.”

***

47. Recommendations by both the 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. CASA, Paula Green, who represents Child's best interest, testified and opined that based on the totality of the evidence that including her own observations, that termination is in Child's best interest. FCM, Hayden Donaho, and former FCM, Nathalia Beam, testified and opined that based on the totality of the evidence including based on their own observations, that termination is in Child's best interest.

48. The trial court is not required to believe or assess the same weight to evidence as does a Parent.

Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. 3, pp. 106-09 (internal citations omitted).

[15] Both Mother and Father have filed appellate briefs challenging the juvenile court's finding that termination of their respective parental rights was in A.P.’s best interest. Their appeals were consolidated by order of our court.

Standard of Review

[16] Indiana appellate courts have long adhered to a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental rights. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1230-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). In analyzing the juvenile court's decision, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the court's judgment. Id. In deference to the juvenile court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

[17] To determine whether a termination decision is clearly erroneous, we apply a two-tiered standard of review to the juvenile court's findings of facts and conclusions of law. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings; second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, (quoting Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996)). If the evidence and inferences support the court's termination decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. We will accept unchallenged factual findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 614 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[18] It is well-settled that the parent-child relationship is one of society's most cherished relationships. See, e.g., In re A.G., 45 N.E.3d 471, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Indiana law thus sets a high bar to sever that relationship by requiring DCS to prove the requisite statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2023).² When the petition to terminate parental rights was filed in this case, subsection 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) provided that DCS had to prove that one of the following was 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 ․

Here, the juvenile court found that DCS had proven all three elements listed in subsection 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). Neither Mother nor Father challenges the juvenile court's findings on those elements.

[19] Parents claim that DCS did not prove that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights was in A.P.’s best interests. See I.C. 31-35-2-4(C). We consider Parents’ arguments under the well-settled principle that clear and convincing evidence need not establish that the continued custody of a parent is wholly inadequate for a child's very survival. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 148. It is instead sufficient to show that the child's emotional and physical development are put at risk by the parent's custody. Id. If the court finds the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a).

Discussion and Decision

[20] Mother and Father argue that DCS failed to prove that termination of their parental rights was in A.P.’s best interests. To determine what is in a child's best interests, a court is required to look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A parent's historical inability to provide “adequate housing, stability, and supervision,” in addition to the parent's current inability to do so, supports finding termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Id.

[21] When making its decision, the court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child. See In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship.” Id. Moreover, recommendations of the case manager and CASA, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied or that the parent-child relationship poses a threat to child's well-being, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests.³ In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Mother's Arguments

[22] Mother cites evidence of her recent sobriety and stable housing in the year leading up to the termination fact-finding hearing in support of her claim that termination of her parental rights is not in A.P.’s best interests. Further, Mother argues that because A.P. is “doing very well in foster care ․ [t]he record does not support an inference that continuation of the CHINS proceeding would have any adverse or negative impact on A.P.” Mother's Appellant's Br. at 20.

[23] A.P. has been placed with the same foster family for over two years. When she was initially placed with her foster family, A.P. had several medical issues that required immediate attention, significant behavioral issues, and her math and language skills were significantly below grade level. A.P. has made significant behavioral and academic improvements while in foster parents’ care. The family case managers, A.P.’s therapist, and CASA all testified that A.P. needs the structure and stability that her foster parents provide for her and that she feels safe with her foster parents.

[24] Mother has never demonstrated that she is able to parent A.P. or provide her with the stability that she requires. A.P. suffers from PTSD because of abuse she suffered from Mother's boyfriend. Mother subsequently married her boyfriend and, at the fact-finding hearing, she questioned whether her husband had abused A.P. in the past. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 205.

[25] For these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court's finding that termination of Mother's parental rights is in A.P.’s best interests is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Father's Arguments

[26] Father argues that DCS failed to prove that termination of his parental rights was in A.P.’s best interests because he completed all services offered by DCS, he had a stable home and employment, and he had achieved a two-year period of sobriety. Father also relies on the CASA's opinion that it is in A.P.’s best interest to continue to have a relationship with Father. Father acknowledges his inability to provide for A.P.’s needs in her first nine years of life but argues that he is now “in a position to provide for all of A.P.’s needs.” Father's Appellant's Br. at 17.

[27] Father's recent life changes are commendable, and the uncontested evidence presented during the fact-finding hearing established that Father and A.P. love each other and share a bond. However, due to Father's incarceration and chronic homelessness, Father has not had A.P. in his care for years. During the second CHINS proceedings in June 2020, Father's trial home visit with A.P. was terminated after Father assaulted Mother. Father was arrested and incarcerated. Ex. Vol. 2, p. 121. Shortly after DCS began its investigation in the third CHINS proceedings, Father committed offenses against his girlfriend, which resulted in his convictions for intimidation, residential entry, and battery. Ex. Vol. 3, pp. 83-89. Father was not released from incarceration until March 2023. And Father was homeless until four months prior to the fact-finding hearing.

[28] The juvenile court considered Father's historical patterns of conduct and his admitted past inability to care for A.P. and weighed that against evidence of the recent, positive changes in Father's life. The court also had to consider Father's recent success and sobriety against the evidence that A.P. needs the stability and structure that her foster family has provided to her.

[29] Clear and convincing evidence supports the court's finding that termination of Father's parental rights is in A.P.’s best interests, and our court will not second guess the trial court's finding on appeal.

Conclusion

[30] DCS presented clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights is in A.P.’s best interests. Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court's termination order.

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A.P has two siblings, G.P., born in 2013, and C.P., born in 2016, as well as one half-sibling, A.W., born in 2019. Parents consented to G.P.’s and C.P.’s foster parents’ petitions to adopt their respective foster children. The adoptive parents have allowed Parents to continue to maintain relationships with G.P. and C.P.

2.   The legislature has amended this statute effective March 11, 2024. Rather than subsection (b), the relevant provisions are now found in subsection (d).

3.   Relying on the improvements that they made in the months leading up to the fact-finding hearing, both Mother and Father argue that our court cannot rely solely on the trial court's findings that the conditions that resulted in A.P.’s removal from their care have not been remedied and the case managers and CASA testified that termination was in A.P.’s best interests. Neither Mother nor Father raised their challenge to the “conditions that resulted in removal” finding as a separate issue. Also, neither Mother nor Father challenges the trial court's finding that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to A.P.’s well-being. That finding in conjunction with the family case managers’ testimonies and CASA's testimony is also sufficient to support the court's best interest finding.

Mathias, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.