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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] W.S. (“Father”) appeals an order involuntarily terminating his parental rights over A.S., W.S., Jr., and L.S. (collectively, “the Children”). The sole issue is whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the termination of Father's parental rights is in the Children's best interests. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The following facts are taken from the unchallenged findings in the trial court's order.¹ C.B. (“Mother”) gave birth to A.S. in September 2011, L.S. in February 2013, and W.S., Jr., in March 2014. Soon thereafter, Father informed the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) “that he would benefit from services to assist him with employment and housing.” Appealed Order at 2. In June, DCS filed a request for approval of informal adjustment programs, which the trial court granted.

[3] In September 2014, DCS filed petitions alleging each of the Children, who had been removed from the home, to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”). The CHINS petitions were based in part on “Mother's use of illegal substances and Father's incarceration.” Id.² Both Mother and Father admitted to the allegations in the petitions, and the Children were adjudicated CHINS. DCS placed the Children in a foster home, where they remained for approximately three years. At that time, W.S., Jr., “was medically fragile, with many health issues. He needed breathing treatments and a special feeding formula.” Id. L.S. “was angry.” Id. And three-year-old A.S. “tried to ‘mother’ her two siblings, cooking for them and doing their laundry.” Id.

[4] At some point, DCS petitioned to terminate Father's and Mother's parental rights to the Children. After a fact-finding hearing in March 2016, the trial court denied the petitions on the basis that DCS had failed to sustain its evidentiary burden. In August 2017, the court approved a trial home visit for the Children at Father's home. In September 2017, the court terminated jurisdiction in the CHINS cases, granted Father sole physical custody, and granted Mother supervised parenting time. The foster parents maintained contact with the Children, “had birthday and holiday parties for [them], visited them at home, and attended their sporting events.” Id. at 5. They “also tried to support Father in keeping his family intact.” Id.

[5] Sometime before May 30, 2023, Father contacted the Children's foster mother with concerns that A.S. was engaging in self-harm. With the foster parents’ consent, Father left A.S. and L.S. “in their care, so that he could work on his own issues.” Id. at 4. Several days later, the foster parents “went to Father's trailer to get clothes and other items for the girls. Father was not home and would not answer his phone.” Id. “After 45-60 minutes, Father came out of the trailer. He was upset, had bloodshot eyes, and was twitching.” Id. “Concerned that Father was going through some rough times, the [foster parents] decided to contact the DCS for assistance.” Id.

[6] In June 2023, DCS removed the Children from their parents’ custody and filed petitions alleging that they were CHINS. DCS again placed the Children with the foster parents, where they have remained since. At an August 2023 hearing, Father admitted that the Children were CHINS. He further “admitted that he was participating in substance use treatment at Progress House in Indianapolis; that he could not properly parent the Children due to his substance use; and that he was unable to provide the Children with shelter, medical care, education, and supervision.” Id. at 5. Following a September 2023 dispositional hearing, the trial court granted wardship of the Children to DCS.

[7] After a November 2023 review hearing, the trial court noted that “Father had not supplied the DCS with proof that he had completed an assessment and had been participating in substance use therapy at Clean Slate.” Id. The permanency plan for the Children remained reunification. After a February 2024 review hearing, the court “concluded that Father was not ‘fully cooperating’ with the DCS” and added “[a] concurrent permanency plan of adoption[.]” Id. This plan remained in effect after a May 2024 hearing.

[8] In March 2024, DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Stephanie Ashbaugh was assigned to the case. She “assured that reunification services referrals were in place for Father, including individual therapy, case management, parenting education, supervised parenting time, and substance use treatment.” Id. at 6. Between September 2023 and October 2024, Father tested positive for THC and cocaine multiple times, and he “refused to take a drug screen for FCM Ashbaugh two times.” Id. Father tested positive for both THC and cocaine less than one month before the termination fact-finding hearing. He has used marijuana since he was seventeen years old and “uses cocaine when he feels he is ‘in a dark place.’ ” Id. Carol Childress, a service provider from Centerstone, “identified that Father had a ‘polysubstance disorder.’ ” Id.

[9] Robin Cruz, a licensed clinical social worker with another service provider, supervised visits between Father and the Children in “October and November 2023, and then again from January to February 2024. The visits were scheduled for one time per week.” Id. “In both instances, Ms. Cruz closed out the referral due to Father's noncompliance. Father only participated in one (1) visit during the first referral and three (3) visits during the second referral.” Id.

[10] “After the Children were removed in June 2023, Father was ‘on his own’ for about a month.” Id. at 8. “In July 2023, he was in a hospital for seventy-two (72) hours, and then went to Sulfur Springs for two (2) weeks to detox from cocaine. From there, he was in a rehab facility for twenty-eight (28) days, and then a half-way house for about six (6) weeks.” Id. He stayed at his girlfriend's mother's apartment “for some period, and by late November 2023, he was staying at his sister's home. He remained there until early January 2024, and then went back to [his girlfriend's] mother's place. Id.³ “In April or May 2024, Father used his ‘tax check’ to lease a two-bedroom house․, from which he was evicted on July 16, 2024[.]” Id.

[11] In September 2024, DCS filed petitions to terminate both Father's and Mother's parental rights to the Children. The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on November 25. On December 1, the court issued an order granting the petitions. Because Mother does not participate in this appeal, we recite only the findings and conclusions relevant to Father:

65. ․. At the time of the trial ․, Father had been living in a hotel with [his girlfriend] for about three (3) weeks.

․.

66. Father exercises parenting time with his Children, and visited as recently as the day immediately prior to the trial ․. The visits are supervised by a service provider.․

67. Father has missed and canceled visits from time to time, which causes stress and emotional issues for the Children. As a result, the Children are typically not told of visits with Father until they occur. He has kept about half of the scheduled parenting time sessions. In 2024, he attended eleven (11) of the twenty-four (24) visits that were offered.

․.

70. Father is allowed to call the Children anytime. He did so everyday during the summer of 2024. At first, the Children approached the daily calls with skepticism. Over time, the Children began to look forward to the daily contact with Father. The Children were disappointed when Father stopped calling.

․.

71. Father is currently working at Richmond Casting. He works a full-time schedule and earns around $17 per hour. Earlier in 2024, he worked at Quanex, and for A Morgan Construction.

72. Father does not earn enough money to pay for a house sufficiently large enough for the Children to be returned to his care.

․.

75. The Children are doing well at the [foster parents’] home. They enjoy going to school ․.

․.

77. The Children are also involved in various extra-curricular activities.․ The [foster parents] assure the Children get to their various activities, and “the family bus is on the road all the time.” Father has attended a couple of the ball games.

78. The Children have many health care appointments, and the [foster parents] assure they get to those appointments. Father does not attend.

․.

81. The [foster parents] are willing to adopt these Children, and have adopted the approach that they will do whatever is best for the Children.․

․.

84. Mackenzie Dunckel has been the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) for these three Children since September 5, 2023. During her service, CASA Dunckel has interacted with Father many times.․ She has also visited the Children at the [foster parents’] home many times, observing them to be very active, having lots of fun, having friends, and going to church. CASA Dunckel has observed that the Children have their own spaces in the [foster parents’] house, and has observed no safety issues with that house.

85. Because of Father's ongoing housing issues, ongoing substance use, non-compliance with services, and the Children's expressed desire to be adopted, CASA Dunckel has formed the opinion that it would be in the best interest of the Children for parental rights to be terminated so the Children could be adopted.

․.

Based upon the findings set out above, the Court concludes as follows:

․.

The DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of each child, that being adoption by the current foster parents.․ The Children want to be adopted, and the foster parents are willing to do so.

․.

The DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between each of these Children and both parents is in each child's best interest.

․.

Father, despite the Children having been out of his care since June 2023, has not been able to establish a suitable home for the Children to be returned to. His current employment situation does not support a conclusion that an adequate home is on the horizon, even though the daily cost of supporting his Children has been lifted over the past seventeen (17) months. He has missed as many parenting opportunities with the Children as he has made, and rarely attends the Children's life events, such as sporting activities and ball games. Despite treatment efforts, he continues to use illegal substances, occasionally adding cocaine use to his ongoing marijuana use, all of which the Court reasonably assumes is not provided to Father for free.

In contrast, the Children are thriving in foster care with dedicated foster parents who are willing to adopt them. While under the care of their foster parents, the Children have received the fundamentals of food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. Beyond those necessities, the Children love going to school, have made friends, and engage in extracurricular and pro-social activities, all pointing to a level of normalcy for the Children while placed with their foster family. Additionally, the Children have expressed their desire to be adopted.

․.

The DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that each child has been removed from the care of both parents, and has been under the supervision of the DCS for at least fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, and that despite reasonable efforts by the DCS to preserve and reunify each child with one or both parents, the parents have been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in each child's placement in care outside of the parents’ home.

․.

The Children were removed from Father's care because (1) he was participating in substance use treatment, (2) could not properly parent the Children due to his substance use, and (3) was unable to provide the Children with shelter, medical care, education, and supervision. Addressing each of these “circumstances that resulted in the Child(ren) being placed in care outside the parent's home” in turn, the Court concludes as follows:

(1) The evidence does not support a conclusion that any substance use treatment that Father is participating in would in any way impinge on his ability to parent these Children;

(2) There was no evidence provided to support a conclusion that Father's ongoing substance use somehow prevents him from being able to “properly parent” these Children. The DCS provided ample evidence illuminating Father's ongoing use of THC, and occasional use of cocaine. At the same time, the DCS failed to present evidence to link Father's drug use with any inability to properly care for and parent these Children.

(3) Regardless of the two conclusions immediately above, the evidence does clearly and convincingly sustain a conclusion that despite the services provided by the DCS, Father remains unable, seventeen (17) months after removal, to provide these Children with adequate shelter.

․.

Largely similar to the conclusion made immediately above, the evidence presented at trial clearly and convincingly establishes a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to the Children's removal from [the] home, as well as the reasons they were placed outside of the home, will not be remedied.

․.

[T]he evidence supports a reasonable probability that Father will not be able to overcome the conditions specific to him that led to the Children's original removal, as well as their ongoing placement outside of his home and care. Father is not consistent with his participation in reunification services. He misses parenting time sessions as much as he attends them. Even with his current employment, and the financial strain of caring for his Children taken off his shoulders, Father has not been able to establish nor maintain a home to which these three Children could reasonably be returned. Despite professing that he is going to buckle down and discontinue his ongoing drug use, Father has continued to use marijuana for the past fifteen (15) years, adding in cocaine use when he is “in a dark place”. For the reasons set out ․ above, Father's ongoing drug use, standing alone, does not directly factor into the Court's decision today. Nonetheless, the fact that Father admits ongoing drug use, even after having dodged the DCS’ prior efforts to terminate his parental rights, exemplifies the existence of a “reasonable probability” that Father is not likely to change his lifestyle to the level needed to remedy the accumulated conditions that led to these Children being removed from his care.

․.

The allegation that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health or life of the Children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence at this trial.

Id. at 8-13. Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] We acknowledge that “[t]he traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe Cnty. Div. of Fam. & Child. (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Schultz v. Porter Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Termination of a parent-child relationship is proper where a child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. Although the right to raise one's own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. Id. at 836.

[13] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required to allege and prove, among other things:

the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances:

․.

(2) That:

(A) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local [DCS] office or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child; and

(B) despite [DCS's] reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the child's family under IC 31-34-21-5.5, the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in the child being placed in care outside the parent's home.

(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.

(4) That there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health, or life of the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)(2)-(4) (2024).

[14] DCS's “burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ ” R.Y. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C.§ 31-37-14-2). Here, the trial court found that DCS met its burden with respect to two of the three paragraphs quoted above.

[15] In addition, DCS must allege and prove:

(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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c)(2)-(3) (2024). The trial court found that DCS met its burden with respect to both elements.

[16] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court's judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied, cert. denied. “Clear error is that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re C.D., 141 N.E.3d 845, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.

[17] In terminating Father's parental rights, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon. On appeal, Father does not challenge any of the court's factual findings. When findings of fact are unchallenged, this Court accepts them as true. L.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re S.S.), 120 N.E.3d 605, 608 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). As such, if the unchallenged findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment, we will affirm. Kitchell v. Franklin, 26 N.E.3d 1050, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[18] Father challenges only the trial court's conclusion that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the Children's best interests. In determining a child's best interests, the trial court “must look at the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, subordinate the parents’ interests to those of the children.” In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019), cert. denied. “Central among these interests is the children's need for permanency.” Id. “Indeed, ‘children cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.’ ” Id. (quoting In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 648 (Ind. 2014)). See also In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273, 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (“We are unwilling to put [a child] on a shelf until her parents are capable of caring for her appropriately.”).

[19] Father argues that his “circumstances at the time of the termination had improved, in that he had reasonable income through employment, was saving to get adequate housing, and had a valid driver's license.” Appellant's Br. at 10. He also contends that, “[t]hough his relationship with his children was clearly strained, there was evidence that the children had concern for Father and looked forward to visits with Father.” Id. at 10-11.

[20] Father ignores that his visits with the Children were sporadic, that his frequent no-shows caused them “stress and emotional issues[,]” and that the Children wanted to be adopted by their foster family. Appealed Order at 8. He also disregards that he had been unable to obtain adequate housing for the Children, despite having no financial responsibility for them for a year and a half, and that he apparently prioritized spending money on illegal drugs over establishing a suitable living environment for his family. Father also overlooks the testimony of CASA Dunckel, who opined that termination would be in the Children's best interests because of his “ongoing housing issues, ongoing substance use, non-compliance with services, and the Children's expressed desire to be adopted[.]” Id. at 10.

[21] Looking at the totality of the undisputed factual findings set forth above, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in concluding that termination of Father's parental rights is in the Children's best interests. The Children are currently in a stable home environment with loving foster parents who are willing to adopt them, whereas Father has failed to consistently visit the Children, has repeatedly struggled with substance abuse, and has no realistic prospect of obtaining adequate housing “on the horizon[.]” Id. at 11. Father's argument to the contrary is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We have replaced the trial court's references to “the children” with “the Children.”

2.   In April 2014, Father pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor conversion and was sentenced to ninety days in jail. In December 2014, Father pleaded guilty to Class C felony burglary and Class D felony receiving stolen property and was sentenced to four years in prison. Also, in February 2020, Father pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and was placed on probation, which was revoked when he admitted to “possessing or using narcotics or other controlled substances except as lawfully, medically prescribed.” Appealed Order at 7. He then served thirty days “of the originally suspended sentence in jail[.]” Id.

3.   Father has two children with his girlfriend, both of whom were adjudicated CHINS in other proceedings.

Bailey, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and DeBoer concur. Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.