In the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.H. and C.H. (Minor Children), and M.H. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] M.H. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her minor children R.H. and C.H. (the “Children”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and D.H. (“Father,” and together with Mother, “Parents”)¹ are the parents of R.H., born in June 2018, and C.H., born in May 2019. On April 13, 2023, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that the Children were the victims of neglect due to being found outside “in the streets” without supervision or adequate clothing. Exhibits Volume III at 17. There were also concerns regarding the condition of the home. On April 19, 2023, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were children in need of services (“CHINS”).

[3] The court held an initial hearing on April 25, 2023, and DCS filed an amended CHINS petition on May 16, 2023. The court held a factfinding hearing on July 11, 2023. Mother failed to appear for the factfinding, but Father appeared and admitted that the Children were CHINS. The Children remained in the home and were not removed from Parents’ care at that time.

[4] The court held a dispositional hearing on August 8, 2023, but continued the hearing to give Parents “two more weeks to see if [Parents] could remedy the conditions of the home and improve their supervision of the [C]hildren.” Transcript Volume II at 19. The continued dispositional hearing was held on August 22, 2023. Father appeared, but Mother did not. During the two-week period, Parents did not “engage in any way with their own efforts to remedy” the reported issues as to supervision of the Children or the home conditions. Id. at 15-16. Just prior to the hearing, DCS received another report of the Children “being seen outside without being supervised” and an inspection of the home indicated that while the condition “had improved some ․ there were still concerns in the home for the safety of the kids[.]” Id. at 19. Specifically, “there were floors ripped up. There were exposed nails. All the floorboards were pulled up. There was dirty laundry piled up probably about waist high in several of the rooms. Dirty dishes in the kitchen sink.” Id. at 19-20.

[5] Due to ongoing safety and well-being concerns for the Children, Court Appointed Special Advocate Tiffany Eggers (“CASA Eggers”) petitioned the court for removal of the Children from the home. She observed the home to be an “extremely unsafe environment” in which “Mother was not caring for the [C]hildren.” Id. at 54. During one visit, the Children were outside alone, Parents were not home, and a man with a violent criminal past who the court ordered could not be around the Children was present. Inside the home, in addition to exposed baseboards and nails, CASA Eggers observed dead animals and feces. On another visit, CASA Eggers observed “bizarre behavior” from Mother, including “walking around and showing [CASA Eggers] feces all over the ceiling and then how she would take a lighter to burn the bugs off the ceiling.” Id. at 58. Mother also told CASA Eggers that the family had a pet bunny that she put “on the top shelf and forgot about it so the bunny died.” Id. Parents’ landlord reported “finding pill bottles inside the home,” and Mother stated to CASA Eggers that R.H. was “uncontrollable” and “aggressive,” and she claimed that R.H. had dislocated her shoulder when he was four years old. Id. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the Children removed from the home and placed with their paternal aunt.

[6] On August 25, 2023, the court issued a dispositional order. The court ordered Parents to participate in reunification services including orders that they: maintain contact with DCS; allow for unannounced home visits by service providers; enroll in recommended programs; keep all appointments with DCS and services providers; maintain suitable, safe, and stable housing with adequate bedding, functional utilities, and adequate food and food preparation facilities; ensure the family residence is structurally sound, sanitary, clean, and free from clutter; secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income; ensure the Children are properly, clothed, fed, and supervised; refrain from using, manufacturing, or selling all illegal controlled substances; submit to random drug screens; complete a parenting assessment and any recommendations; attend visits with the Children; and participate in homebased case work and parenting education.

[7] The court held a review hearing on November 14, 2023. Parents failed to appear. The court found that Parents had not complied with the Children's case plans or dispositional orders and they had not enhanced their ability to fulfill their parental obligations. Parents had not engaged in services or regular and consistent visitation with the Children, they had not secured or maintained safe and suitable housing, and they had not secured and maintained suitable and legal income.

[8] The court held a review hearing on April 16, 2024. Parents failed to appear. The court found that Parents had not complied with the Children's case plans, engaged in ordered services, visited with the Children, secured or maintained safe and suitable housing, or secured and maintained suitable and legal income. DCS had further discovered that Parents each had pending criminal charges. Regarding Mother specifically, DCS discovered that Mother had been charged with possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of a syringe, and possession of paraphernalia. On April 17, 2024, the court approved a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption.

[9] The court held another review hearing on July 16, 2024. Parents again failed to appear. DCS presented evidence that Parents had still not made any significant progress to enhance their parenting skills. Moreover, as of July 2024, Mother had missed numerous required drug screens. The one drug screen she did provide to DCS in January 2024 was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. The court modified the permanency plan “to eliminate reunification as appropriate for the [Children's] best interests, and the plan of adoption was approved.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 40.

[10] On July 31, 2024, DCS filed a verified petition for the involuntary termination of Parents’ parental relationships with the Children. The court held a termination factfinding hearing on October 29, 2024. Neither Mother nor Father appeared. Father's counsel stated that she had been unable to locate Father since the previous week. Mother's counsel stated that Mother had indicated that she was planning to be at the hearing and that her counsel did not “have any reason for her not being here at this point.” Transcript Volume II at 4. Mother's counsel moved for a continuance “to try to see if” counsel could “get [Mother] here.” Id. at 5. DCS objected to the continuance, and the court sustained the objection and denied the motion.

[11] DCS presented the testimony of DCS Supervisor Teresa Setty, Family Case Manager Tammy McBride (“FCM McBride”), and CASA Eggers. FCM McBride testified that Parents failed to comply or cooperate with the court's dispositional orders. She reported that Parents failed to keep DCS apprised of their whereabouts, they would not reply to DCS communications for months, they were evicted from their home, and they claimed “they were homeless living in a camper somewhere in Kokomo.” Id. at 22. She noted, that while Parents “did participate in occasional supervised visits ․ they were discontinued from services for noncompliance by five different attempts by service providers.” Id. at 24. When asked if she observed any progress by Parents after a year of working with them, FCM McBride responded, “None at all.” Id. at 28.

[12] Similarly, CASA Eggers testified that the “safety of the [C]hildren” was her primary concern, and Parents had failed to address or remedy any of the issues that led to their removal from the home. Id. at 58. When asked if she was “very supportive of the termination of parental rights,” she responded, “Absolutely.” Id. at 59. When asked if she believed it was “in the best interest of the [C]hildren that the Parents’ rights be terminated,” she responded, “Absolutely.” Id. When asked if it was in “the best interest of the [C]hildren that the adoption takes place by the aunt,” she responded, “Absolutely.” Id.

[13] On November 26, 2024, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions thereon, and orders terminating the parent-child relationship between Parents 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 Parents’ 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] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination of her 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)).² 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 Mother 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] Mother's sole assertion on appeal is that the evidence does not support the 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 the home due to lack of adequate supervision and unsafe home conditions. DCS presented evidence that during the pendency of the CHINS case, Mother failed to maintain contact with DCS, failed to appear for numerous court proceedings, tested positive for illegal substances, was arrested and charged with criminal activity and did not notify DCS, and failed to participate in services or make any progress or improvements towards remedying the conditions that led to removal. Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court found that “Parents have utterly failed or refused to comply with the case plans, engage in services or visitation ․ Their whereabouts for significant periods of time since the inception of the underlying CHINS matters has been unknown.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 40. The court further found that “DCS has made multiple service referrals ․ all of which were canceled by the provider due to lack of cooperation or participation by parents.” Id. 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 the home will not be remedied.

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

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Although the trial court's termination orders were entered on November 26, 2024, after the effective date of the amended statute, DCS filed the termination petition on July 31, 2024, prior to the effective date. Mother cites the prior version of the statute, and she makes no suggestion that the amended version applies to this case.

Brown, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Weissmann concur. Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.