IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.E. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] B.E. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to D.T. (“Child”). Mother raises the following restated issues for our review:

I.  Whether there was sufficient evidence supporting certain findings; and

II. Whether the trial court's judgment 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 was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

[2] Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother and J.T. (“Father”)¹ are the biological parents of Child. Mother is also the biological mother to six other children, none of which are involved in the instant case. At the time of the termination proceedings, none of the children lived with Mother. Several of Mother's older children were born drug exposed. The Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) first became involved with Mother in 2019 when Mother entered into an informal adjustment concerning one of her older children that was put in place to address Mother's drug use and mental health issues. The informal adjustment was discharged in January 2020. Prior to the current proceedings, Mother was also involved in a previous case with DCS that began in August 2021 and involved E.E., an older sibling of Child who was born drug exposed. E.E. was adjudicated as a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) due to Mother's lack of stable housing and drug use. That previous CHINS case was resolved when paternal grandmother obtained guardianship of E.E.

[4] On October 5, 2022, Child was born drug exposed and positive for amphetamines, THC, and cocaine. The next day, DCS received a report from the hospital alleging neglect based on Child's drug exposure. Family case manager (“FCM”) Brittney Rangel (“FCM Rangel”) went to the hospital to assess the allegations, and when she spoke with Mother, Mother was very defensive and falsely claimed Child was her only child. Because Child was born prematurely, she remained in the hospital for a period of time after birth. The hospital told FCM Rangel that Mother did not visit Child as often as she claimed to, she took long bathroom breaks, and exhibited “odd behaviors.” Ex. Vol. 1 p. 22. Mother told FCM Rangel that Mother had been diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety and received services and took medications for her mental health. Mother admitted to smoking marijuana regularly for her anxiety. On October 13, 2022, DCS received the results of the testing of Child's cord blood, which tested positive for amphetamines, THC, and cocaine.

[5] On October 14, 2022, DCS removed Child from Mother's care and placed Child with Father's mother (“Grandmother”), and Child has remained in the same placement for the entirety of the case. At the time Child was born, Mother was living with Father in Grandmother's home. When Child was placed with Grandmother, Mother initially moved out of Grandmother's home so Child could be placed there. On October 17, 2022, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a CHINS, and a formal removal order for Child was issued with continued placement with Grandmother. At that time, Mother still had an open CHINS case for E.E. In November 2022, Grandmother requested that Mother be allowed to move back in with her to assist with caring for Child, and DCS agreed to allow this if Mother would attend inpatient substance abuse treatment. Mother agreed to attend inpatient substance abuse treatment and moved back in with Grandmother. However, Mother did not attend inpatient treatment and began causing violent disruptions at Grandmother's home. Grandmother then began eviction proceedings to get Mother out of her home. On February 22, 2023, the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS after a fact-finding hearing, concluding that Mother was unable to provide Child with a neglect-free environment which did not seriously endanger Child, did not have stable housing, and had not resolved her addiction issues.

[6] In February 2023, Grandmother successfully evicted Mother from her home. Also, in February 2023, Mother was charged under cause number 64D05-2302-F6-1712 (“Cause 1712”) with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. On March 6, 2023, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and ordered Mother to participate in services to address the reasons Child was removed from Mother's care. DCS made referrals for Mother to participate in individual therapy, inpatient substance abuse treatment, supervised visits, random drug screens, home-based casework to help her find employment and housing, and a medication evaluation. Because Mother had informed DCS that she had mental health challenges, DCS requested a complete evaluation to determine Mother's mental health needs. These referrals remained open and available to Mother throughout the CHINS proceedings.

[7] As ordered in the dispositional decree, Mother was referred to home-based services to assist in obtaining housing and employment. Mother engaged in home-based casework services to the extent that she was able to obtain the documents she needed, such as her birth certificate, to apply for housing, employment, and other benefits. However, Mother did not meet with the service provider regularly and did not meet any of the other goals of the services. Mother claimed to have found employment but never provided confirmation. Over the duration of the case, Mother lived with friends and in two separate hotels and did not maintain stable housing. When Mother told DCS that she was unable to meet with the home-based casework service provider due to her work schedule or other conflicts, DCS tried to make accommodations for her, but she still was not compliant.

[8] At first, Mother was visiting Child at Grandmother's home with Grandmother supervising the visits. However, Grandmother stopped supervising Mother's visits because she felt unable to keep Child safe from Mother's behaviors. Mother had aggressive outbursts and had damaged Grandmother's property. DCS moved Mother's visits thereafter to an agency, but Mother was initially unwilling to attend these visits.

[9] Under her referral for drug screening, Mother was to submit to drug screening at least once a week, but from October 2022 until February 2024, Mother only submitted to five screens, and all of those were positive for THC and methamphetamine. DCS offered Mother transportation to try to get her to be more compliant with drug screening, but she did not take advantage of such accommodations. On April 28, 2023, Mother was charged with Level 6 felony intimidation under Cause number 49D08-2304-F6-812. During the time that Cause 1712 was pending, Mother was incarcerated for several months due to a failure to appear for a hearing. At the time she was released from incarceration, Mother was pregnant again. On August 24, 2023, in Cause 1712, Mother pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and the rest of her charges were dismissed. Mother did not inform DCS she was again pregnant, and she continued to use THC and methamphetamine. On September 23, 2023, Mother gave birth to C.T., who was born drug exposed. C.T. was born prematurely due to a ruptured placenta, and on October 1, DCS removed C.T. and filed a CHINS petition concerning C.T.

[10] Although Mother had been ordered to participate in inpatient treatment for her substance abuse, she refused to do so because she said she would “lose everything.” Tr. Vol. II p. 28. After her release from incarceration and the birth of C.T., as a condition of her probation, Mother attended three or four outpatient sessions to address her addiction. Mother did not comply with the requirements of outpatient therapy, and during this time, she continued to test positive when she submitted drug screens. Mother always disputed the positive results of the drug screens she took for the outpatient program and always challenged the results.

[11] On October 30, 2023, Mother completed a parenting assessment. Mother reported she had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The parenting assessment recommended Mother complete parenting education “to gain more insight as to how her life choices have impacted her children, as well as how it may have continued effect on children if she does not change behaviors.” Ex. Vol. 4 p. 108. The assessment concluded that Mother needed transportation assistance and to find a stable home, full time employment, and options for childcare. Additionally, the assessment found that Mother needed individual therapy that should address her substance abuse and to complete a current clinical assessment to accurately determine her mental health needs. The assessment recommended Mother participate in an intensive outpatient treatment program for her addictions and to continue weekly drug screening.

[12] Mother continued to test positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on August 30, November 9, and November 28, 2023, and also tested positive for THC, cocaine, and benzodiazepine on two of the dates. In 2024, Mother did not inform DCS she was pregnant again. She continued to test positive for methamphetamine and THC on January 8, January 11, January 25, February 22, and February 29, 2024. She also tested positive for amphetamine on three of those dates. After February 2024, Mother failed to submit to drug screens twice a week as required.

[13] Mother consistently attended parenting classes between February and April 2024 but then was noncompliant for several months. Mother participated in home-based casework services between February and April 2024 but did not find employment or housing. Mother did not participate in services, visit Child, or contact DCS between April and August 2024. Mother failed to attend the permanency hearing held on April 25, 2024. On May 9, 2024, DCS filed its petition to terminate Mother's and Father's parent-child relationship with Child.

[14] On July 16, 2024, Mother gave birth to K.T., who was born drug exposed. Mother and Father used fake names at the hospital to avoid DCS involvement, but DCS determined their identities through the phone number Mother gave to the hospital. After DCS discovered this, a CHINS petition was filed for K.T. On August 21, 2024, the trial court held a permanency hearing for Child contemporaneously and suspended Mother's visits with Child at that time.

[15] Sometime after September 17, 2024, Mother contacted DCS and asked to re-engage in services. Mother told DCS she had completed inpatient drug addiction treatment but never provided DCS with any records of that treatment. At that time, Mother's visits with Child remained suspended. When Mother re-engaged with services, she completed an application for low-income housing and applied for jobs. Mother began attending parenting education and was learning how to manage having three children under the age of two. She was attending individual counseling and working through her anxiety, depression, and her substance use. At that time, Mother told DCS she was living at an address on Tulip Lane, but she did not initially allow DCS access to the home despite multiple attempts to schedule the home assessment.

[16] On October 6, 2024, law enforcement officers responded to a call from the homeowner at 1608 Tulip Lane complaining that her ex-husband, who had a history of domestic violence, was in the home violating a protective order. After the officers arrived, Father exited the home and was placed into handcuffs, although it was unclear if he was the subject of the call to law enforcement. Once the police went inside the house, they found Mother exiting a back bedroom. When securing the home, officers found, in plain view, needles, syringes, scales, and loaded syringes with a brown substance inside. Based on the officers’ training and experience, it was believed that the brown substance in the syringes was heroin. Mother gave the police a false name when she spoke with them, but the police were able to ascertain her real name from a piece of mail in the house. Mother and Father claimed to be renting the home but did not have a lease with the homeowners. Mother had come out of a bedroom where officers found loaded syringes and drugs.

[17] On October 29, 2024, the trial court held the termination fact-finding hearing. At the hearing, evidence was presented that Mother was never consistent at attending visits with Child and had not visited with Child since April 2024. At the time of the hearing, DCS had still not been able to go to the home where Mother was living to assess it. Testimony was given that, although Mother had re-engaged in services in September, she had not been compliant with submitting to drug screens. She did provide a drug screen to DCS on October 21, 2024, but the results were not available at the time of the termination hearing.

[18] Evidence was presented that Child had resided with Grandmother since she was three days old and was bonded with Grandmother and thriving in the home. Child had never been in Mother's care or custody, and Mother's visits with Child never progressed past supervised visitation. Grandmother testified that, when Mother lived with her after Child's birth and removal, Grandmother caught Mother throwing away a syringe and then started finding needles and drugs in the home. Grandmother testified that Mother did not help her take care of the home when she lived there. After Grandmother evicted Mother from her home, Mother would sneak in and out through the basement windows and come back into the house, forcing Grandmother to call the police. Grandmother testified that she believed it was in Child's best interest that the termination petition be granted because neither Mother nor Father had changed, and they had done nothing to help themselves get better. Grandmother stated that Mother and Father could not even take care of themselves and that Child did not even know who they were. Mother was like this with all of her other children and would only “start visiting” when she knew she had “to go to court” and then “stop visiting” afterwards. Tr. Vol. II p. 104.

[19] FCM Britney Rice (“FCM Rice”), who was assigned to the case from October 2022 until February 2024, testified that although Mother was ordered to participate in inpatient substance abuse treatment, she never did so, and did not make any effort to attend outpatient treatment until about a year after Child was removed, and she was not compliant with the outpatient treatment after beginning it. FCM Rice also testified that, although Mother admitted that she struggled with substance abuse, she did not take accountability for her drug use because she was never consistent with “any of the programming to really address the substance abuse.” Id. at 30. Additionally, during FCM Rice's time on the case, Mother never had stable housing and never provided proof of employment. As to drug screens, FCM Rice stated that, although Mother was supposed to submit a screen weekly, from October 2022 until February 2024, Mother only submitted five, which were all positive. FCM Rice testified that, during her time working with Mother, Mother was never able to remedy her substance abuse issues. FCM Rice believed that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests and testified that it was her opinion that it was “not very likely” that Mother would address “her substance abuse issues in a timely manner” and so, in part due to Child's age, “long-term permanency” was the best option for Child. Id. at 48.

[20] FCM Twyla Johnson (“FCM Johnson”) took over the case after FCM Rice in February 2024 and continued to be the caseworker at the time of the termination hearing. FCM Johnson testified that, during her time on the case, Mother was not compliant with drug screening and did not consistently participate in parenting education. From the end of April 2024 until September 16, 2024, Mother did not participate in any services, and although Mother stated she was in rehab during some of that time period, she never provided any treatment records. FCM Johnson testified it was in Child's best interest to terminate the parent-child relationship to allow Child to be adopted by Grandmother because Child needs permanency which she will be given with Grandmother. FCM Johnson explained that, although Mother had made short term efforts to participate in services recently, Mother's compliance with services had been inconsistent throughout the case, and Mother had not demonstrated that she had taken accountability for her drug use.

[21] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the decision under advisement, and on November 13, 2024, the court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law terminating Mother's parent-child relationship. The court concluded Mother was not able to safely and independently parent Child or to provide Child with necessary care, support, and supervision. The trial court concluded that Child's right to permanency outweighed Mother's right to parent Child. Further, the court concluded Mother had not taken “any accountability for her substance abuse issues” and had not “addressed her substance abuse issues” and that “[a]ll efforts to engage [M]other in [offered] services” had failed. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 44. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[22] While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise their children, the law allows for the termination of parental rights based on a parent's inability or unwillingness to meet parental responsibilities. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005); In re D.P., 994 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Thus, parental rights are subordinated to the child's interests in resolving a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship. In re. J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent but to protect the child. In re D.P., 994 N.E.2d at 1231. Termination of parental rights is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. The trial court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that their physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id.

[23] As our Supreme Court has observed, “[d]ecisions to terminate parental rights are among the most difficult our trial courts are called upon to make. They are also among the most fact-sensitive—so we review them with great deference to the trial courts ․” E.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636, 640 (Ind. 2014). In evaluating the trial court's findings and conclusions in an order terminating parental rights, we review only for clear error, and we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). First, we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.” Id. If the evidence and reasonable inferences support the trial court's decision, we must affirm. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

I. Findings Supported by the Evidence

[24] Mother asserts that several of the trial court's findings were not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. A finding is clearly erroneous when there are no facts or reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support it. Stewart v. Randolph Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 804 N.E.2d 1207, 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Even erroneous findings are not reversible error if they are harmless. See, e.g., In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“We may reverse a trial court's judgment ․ only if its findings constitute prejudicial error ․ A finding of fact is not prejudicial to a party unless it directly supports a conclusion.”), trans. denied. An erroneous finding is “merely harmless surplusage” when the unchallenged findings “provide ample support for the trial court's ultimate conclusion.” Id.

[25] Mother first contends that the trial court's finding that “[a]ll efforts to engage [M]other in the services have failed” was not supported by the evidence. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 44. Mother argues that the evidence established that she sporadically engaged and attempted to re-engage in services multiple times and that, although she was not consistent in her communication, she did communicate with DCS when she was able to. Although the evidence did demonstrate that Mother sporadically engaged in services, the evidence also established that she never successfully completed any of the referred services and was never able to achieve the necessary stability and sobriety to safely parent Child. Based on this failure to successfully complete any services, it was reasonable for the trial court to find that all efforts to engage Mother in the referred services had failed.

[26] Mother next argues that the finding that she “did not take advantage of home-based casework services” was not supported by the evidence. Appellant's Br. p. 13. She asserts that the record showed that she worked with her caseworker to obtain vital documents for housing, employment, and other benefits and that at the time of the termination hearing, she secured housing. In its order, the trial court found, “Mother was given home[-]based casework services to which [sic] [M]other was unable to obtain stable housing and employment [and] which [M]other did not take advantage of.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 43. The evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed that Mother was offered home-based casework services to assist her in obtaining stable housing and employment and that, although she did participate in those services by obtaining documents necessary for her application for housing, employment, and benefits, that was the extent of her engagement. Mother failed to follow through with the services to actually find housing and employment and was never able to demonstrate proof of stable employment or housing throughout the case. Mother claimed that she had obtained stable rental housing at the time of the termination hearing, but DCS was never able to assess the home or confirm the existence of the lease. The evidence supported this challenged finding.

[27] Mother also challenges the trial court's finding that, “Mother has not demonstrated that she has taken any accountability for her substance abuse issues.” Id. at 44. Mother asserts that the evidence did not support this finding because evidence was presented that she admitted to a long history of addiction, had engaged in two outpatient programs, and had entered but not completed an inpatient program. However, the evidence established that, throughout the duration of Child's CHINS case, Mother did not consistently submit to drug screens and did not complete any of the services offered to assist her in obtaining sobriety. Mother was offered inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, and the evidence revealed that she failed to successfully complete any of the ordered services. She rarely submitted to drug screens, and when she did, they were almost always positive. Further, Mother gave birth to two drug exposed babies while this case was pending, one only a few months before the termination hearing. Sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court's finding that Mother had not taken any accountability for her substance abuse issues.

[28] Lastly, Mother challenges the trial court's finding that, “[i]t would be unfair to [Child] to delay ․ permanency” given Mother's prolonged non-compliance with services. Id. She argues that she presented evidence of recent compliance with services prior to the termination hearing, which “may indicate a change in circumstances.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. In challenging this finding, Mother does not dispute the evidence of her long-standing addiction and substance abuse issues or that her attempts at recent compliance came only mere weeks prior to the hearing and months after the petition to terminate parental rights had been filed. Further, although Mother testified she had recent compliance with services, there was no documented proof of this compliance presented, and the case had been pending for two years with Mother's prolonged non-compliance with services. There was, therefore, evidence to support the trial court's finding regarding Mother's prolonged non-compliance with services. Contrary to Mother's contentions, the challenged findings were all supported by the record, and the trial court did not err in making such findings.

II. Sufficient Evidence for Judgment

[29] Mother next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the removal of Child and the reasons for placement outside of the home would not be remedied. Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, the State must allege and prove:

(1) the existence of one (1) or more of the circumstances described in subsection (d);

(2) that there is a satisfactory plan for care and treatment of the child; and

(3) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c) (2024).² As stated above, a petition must allege the existence of one or more of the circumstances contained in subsection (d). Here, the pertinent alleged circumstance was:

(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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d)(3) (2024). The State's burden of proof for establishing these allegations is one of clear and convincing evidence. In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Moreover, “if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a) (emphasis added).

[30] Other than as set forth above, Mother does not challenge the trial court's findings of fact, so she has waived any arguments relating to the unchallenged findings, and we therefore accept all of the trial court's unchallenged findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (noting this court accepts unchallenged trial court findings as true). Instead, Mother argues that the trial court's conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the removal of Child and the reasons for placement outside of the home would not be remedied was not supported by sufficient evidence. In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to a child's removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, a court engages in a two-step analysis. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). First, the court must determine what conditions led to the child's placement and retention in foster care, and second, the court must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id.

[31] In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing a parent's recent improvements against “ ‘habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.’ ” E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643 (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). Under this rule, “[trial] courts have properly considered evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and employment.” In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

[32] In addition, DCS need not provide evidence ruling out all possibilities of change; rather, it must establish only that there is a reasonable probability that the parent's behavior will not change. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “We entrust th[e] delicate balance to the [trial] court, which has [the] discretion to weigh a parent's prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination.” E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. When determining whether the conditions resulting in removal would be remedied, the trial court may consider the parent's response to the offers of help from DCS or the service providers. D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 873.

[33] Here, Child was removed from Mother's care on October 14, 2022, due to Mother's drug use as Child was born drug exposed, and Child's cord blood tested positive for amphetamines, THC, and cocaine. Additionally, at the time of removal, Mother had an open CHINS case involving E.E., for which Mother was not compliant with services. Child remained out of Mother's care for the duration of the case because of her failure to demonstrate her ability to maintain the sobriety and stability necessary to safely parent Child. Throughout the over two-year span of the case, Mother continued to use drugs and refused to participate in any of the offered substance abuse treatment services until only a few weeks prior to the termination hearing, which was months after DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights. While she attended three or four outpatient treatment sessions that were a requirement of her probation after being released from incarceration in 2023, she did not complete the outpatient sessions and refused to attend the ordered inpatient treatment. Moreover, Mother did not consistently submit to drug screens, which were to be done weekly, and of the few she did submit to, most were positive. Further, over the course of this case, Mother gave birth to two more children that were both born drug exposed and removed from her care and even concealed her and Father's identity at the hospital in an effort to avoid DCS's attention.

[34] Additionally, over the two-year length of this case, Mother failed to secure safe and stable housing or stable employment. The evidence revealed that, within months of Child's removal, Grandmother evicted Mother from her home due to Mother's violent disruptions. After that, Mother stayed in hotels and with friends and spent time incarcerated. Although Mother had been referred to home-based services to assist in obtaining housing and employment, Mother only engaged in those services to the extent that she obtained the documents she needed to apply for housing, employment, and other benefits. Otherwise, Mother did not meet with the service provider regularly and did not meet any of the other goals of the services. Mother claimed to have found employment at times during the pendency of the case but never provided confirmation of this employment. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother maintained that she had signed a one-year lease on a home, but DCS was never able to set up a time to assess the appropriateness and safety of the home, and there was no confirmation a lease actually existed. Additionally, evidence was presented that there had been a police call a few weeks before the hearing to a home where Mother was living, and drugs and drug paraphernalia were observed in the room from where Mother emerged.

[35] Although Mother testified that she had re-engaged in services in September 2024, which was only weeks before the termination hearing and several months after the termination petition had been filed, the evidence presented established that, over almost the entirety of the two-year proceedings, Mother had not complied with services, had not completed substance abuse treatment, and had continued to use drugs. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not yet been able to positively demonstrate that she had safe and stable housing, steady employment, and sustained sobriety such that she could safely and properly parent Child. It was within the trial court's discretion to weigh Mother's history of failure to comply with services and to maintain sobriety more heavily than her efforts made only shortly before the termination hearing. See E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643.

[36] During the entire duration of the case, Mother remained unable to demonstrate that she could safely parent Child or demonstrate any meaningful and lasting change such that DCS could return Child to her care. The trial court, therefore, could reasonably conclude that, based on Mother's historical patterns of conduct and failure to show any substantial change, there was a reasonable probability of future neglect if Child was to be returned to her care. As the Indiana Supreme Court has observed, a child “ ‘cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.’ ” In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019) (quoting E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 648). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions which resulted in Child's removal and continued placement outside the home would not be remedied.

Conclusion

[37] We, therefore, conclude that the challenged findings were supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not err in its judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to Child.

[38] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father's parental rights were terminated in the same proceedings as Mother's. However, Father does not participate in the instant appeal.

2.   This statute was recently amended, effective July 1, 2025. However, none of the cited subsections were affected by the most recent amendments.

Foley, Judge.

Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.