IN RE: The Termination of the Parent Child Relationship of E.P. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] In this consolidated appeal, J.P. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with her three daughters, A.C. (“A.C.”), E.P. (“E.P.”), and R.P. (“R.P.”) (collectively “the children”). Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the terminations. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to support the terminations, we affirm the trial court's judgment.¹

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of the parent-child relationships.

Facts

[3] Mother is the parent of A.C., who was born in June 2010, E.P., who was born in May 2016, and R.P., who was born in June 2017. In 2020, the children lived with Mother and Father (collectively “Parents”).

[4] In December 2020, DCS received a report that an adult had overdosed in Parents’ home. DCS investigated the report, and Parents agreed to participate in an informal adjustment, which the trial court approved in February 2021.

[5] Four months later, in June 2021, DCS received a report that Parents were using illegal drugs in the home when the children were present and that Mother was in intensive care after overdosing. DCS filed separate petitions under separate cause numbers alleging that A.C., E.P., and R.P. were children in need of services (“CHINS”). The petitions alleged that Mother had overdosed on fentanyl. DCS removed the children from the home and placed them together with relatives.

[6] The following month, July 2021, DCS and Parents entered into a Facilitated Agreement (“the Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Mother admitted that the children were CHINS. In addition, Mother agreed to: (1) complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations; (2) abstain from the use of illegal substances; (3) submit to random drug screens; (4) complete a parenting education course; and (5) participate in counseling with eleven-year-old A.C., who suffered from mental health issues.

[7] Mother initially complied with the Agreement, and the trial court approved a trial home visit for the children in September 2021. However, Mother continued to use illegal drugs and was admitted to the hospital for a suspected drug overdose in March 2022. She also tested positive for methamphetamine that same day. Thereafter, DCS removed the children from Parents’ home and again placed them with relatives.

[8] Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine throughout 2022. In addition, she did not regularly visit the children, and she did not consistently participate in services. As a result of Mother's continued drug use, in December 2022, the trial court ordered the cessation of Mother's supervised visits with the children until Mother completed a substance abuse treatment program. Mother subsequently completed an outpatient substance abuse treatment program in June 2023 but tested positive for methamphetamine in September 2023.

[9] In November 2023, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental relationship with E.P. and R.P. In February 2024, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental relationship with A.C. The trial court held a termination hearing for E.P. and R.P., and then a separate termination hearing for A.C.

[10] At the two-day March and April 2024 hearing on the petitions to terminate Mother's parental relationships with seven-year-old E.P. and six-year-old R.P., the trial court heard the facts as set forth above. Further, a drug screen compliance report that was admitted into evidence at the hearing revealed that Mother had missed random drug screens on December 4, 2023, December 11, 2023, and February 7, 2024.

[11] In addition, the evidence revealed that during one of Mother's substance abuse evaluations, the assessor had referred Mother to individual counseling. Mother's therapist (“Mother's therapist”) testified that during the two years that she had been meeting with Mother, Mother had attended seven individual counseling sessions and had missed thirteen sessions. According to Mother's therapist, Mother had not successfully completed the individual counseling program.

[12] A homebased therapist (“the homebased therapist”), who had worked with Mother in the past and who had supervised Parents’ past visits with the children, testified that she had offered the family comprehensive services over a significant period of time. However, according to the homebased therapist, Mother had been unable to successfully resolve the reasons for E.P.’s and R.P.’s removal.

[13] In addition, DCS family case manager Sara Day (“FCM Day”) testified that, after the termination petitions had been filed, Father had passed away from a drug overdose in Mother's home in March 2024. FCM Day also testified that Mother's last visit with E.P. and R.P. had been in December 2022. According to FCM Day, Mother had not successfully completed individual counseling and had tested positive for methamphetamine during the pendency of the proceedings.

[14] FCM Day further testified that E.P. and R.P. were “very high needs kids[,]” who were participating in multiple services. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 38 - termination hearing for E.P. and R.P.). According to FCM Day, E.P. and R.P.’s previous pre-adoptive placement had failed because of E.P.’s “extreme behaviors” in that foster home. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 39 - termination hearing for E.P. and R.P.). Specifically, E.P. had demonstrated suicidal ideation and had verbally threatened people in that home. FCM Day further testified that E.P.’s behaviors had improved after she and R.P. had been placed in their current foster home in September 2023. However, FCM Day had not discussed adoption with the current foster family because she wanted to wait for the results from E.P.’s most recent clinical assessment.

[15] At the conclusion of her testimony, FCM Day recommended the termination of Mother's parental relationships with E.P. and R.P. Specifically, FCM Day testified that E.P. and R.P. had been removed from the home because of Mother’ substance abuse and because of the number of overdoses that had occurred in the home. According to FCM Day, “three and a half years later down the road and we are still ․ in the same situation.” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 36 - termination hearing for E.P. and R.P.).

[16] GAL Katherine Childers (“GAL Childers”) also testified at the hearing and pointed out that E.P. and R.P. had been removed from Mother's home for more than one-half of their lives. GAL Childers opined that the children's bond with Mother had been broken. According to GAL Childers, E.P. and R.P. did not ask about Mother and did not want to talk about Mother when GAL Childers mentioned her. In addition, GAL Childers testified that E.P. and R.P. referred to their foster mother as mom. GAL Childers also recommended the termination of Mother's parental relationships with E.P. and R.P.

[17] Mother testified that her last use of illegal substances had been in October 2022. She further testified that she did not know how she had tested positive for methamphetamine after that date and that she was still “trying to figure [it] out[.]” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 178 - termination hearing for E.P. and R.P.).

[18] At the May 2024 hearing on the petition to terminate Mother's relationship with thirteen-year-old A.C., the trial court heard the facts as set forth above relating to Mother's lack of consistent participation in services and use of methamphetamine during the pendency of the proceedings. Also, at the hearing, FCM Day testified that Mother's last visit with A.C. had been in December 2022 and that Mother had not consistently attended individual counseling. FCM Day further testified that A.C. was “very high needs[.]” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 26 - A.C.’s termination hearing). FCM Day also recommended terminating Mother's parental relationship with A.C. and further testified that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in A.C.’s best interests.

[19] A.C.’s foster mother (“foster mother”), with whom A.C. had been placed in April 2023, testified that shortly after beginning the 8th grade, A.C. had been failing all of her classes. According to A.C.’s foster mother, A.C. had begun listening to audio books because she struggled with reading and reading comprehension. In addition, A.C.’s foster mother helped A.C. with her homework, and A.C. participated in an after-school homework assistance program. At the time of the May 2024 hearing, A.C. had A's, B's, and C's in her classes and was scheduled to successfully complete the 8th grade. Foster mother further testified that A.C. suffered from food insecurity and hoarded food. According to foster mother, A.C. was working on that issue.

[20] Foster mother also testified that she was a pre-adoptive placement and that she had offered A.C. the option of being adopted by her. However, A.C. had stated that she did not want to be adopted. According to foster mother, A.C. had also told foster mother that she wanted to be placed with E.P. and R.P. Foster mother remained open to adopting A.C. or allowing A.C. to remain in foster mother's home so long as A.C. needed a place to stay.

[21] GAL Childers testified that A.C. had “come a long way from when [GAL Childers had] first got[ten] on this case.” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 44 - A.C.’s termination hearing). In addition, GAL Childers recommended the termination of Mother's parental relationship with A.C. because Mother had not completed the necessary services, and “this case ha[d] been going on for years and ․ [A.C.] need[ed] permanency.” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 47 - A.C.’s termination hearing).

[22] Mother again testified that she had not used any illegal drugs since October 2022. Further, she testified that her positive drug test results after October 2022 were “a complete mystery[.]” (Tr. Vol. 1 at 103 - A.C.’s termination hearing).

[23] In September 2024, the trial court issued one order terminating Mother's parental relationships with E.P. and R.P. and another order terminating her parental relationship with A.C. In the detailed order terminating Mother's parental relationship with E.P. and R.P., the trial court found as follows:

20. On September 5, 2023, more than two (2) years after the family's inception of involvement with the child-welfare system, Mother again submitted a fluid sample the analysis of which tested positive for methamphetamine.

21. Although the September 5, 2023, was Mother's most recent positive screen, she missed random screens on 12/4/23, 12/11/23, and 2/7/24 suggesting that Mother may have been using but was not caught. Mother was being screened randomly Monday through Friday about once a week.

22. Mother testified that her last substance use was in October of 2022; however, that self-serving testimony is belied by multiple positive screens, including at least 3 (three) in October 2022, one (1) in November 2022, one (1) in December 2022, and one (1) in September 2023.

* * * * *

51. Reasonable efforts to engage Mother in services for reunification and her lack of consistent engagement through DCS make clear that she is unable to safely reunify with the children and actively parent them now or in the near future; instead, any work that she has done in the quarter immediately prior to this hearing is the direct response to the filing of the State's Verified Petitions.

* * * * *

65. There is no point during the underlying CHINS case that Mother has made significant and sustained progress toward reunification.

66. This Court is seriously concerned about and doubtful of Mother's long-term sobriety given that Mother has been unable to admit that she used illicit substances after October of 2022, even in light of independent third-party testing that belies that assertion.

(App. Vol. 2 at 25, 27, 28). The trial court entered substantially similar findings in the detailed order terminating Mother's parental relationship with A.C.

[24] In addition, in both orders, the trial court concluded that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal or continued placement outside the home would not be remedied; (2) there was a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being of the children; and (3) termination was in the children's best interests.

[25] Mother now appeals both termination orders.

Decision

[26] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of her parental relationships with the children. The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), 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. Id. at 1188. Termination of the 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.

[27] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is required 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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).² DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[28] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.

[29] Where, as here, the trial court's order contains specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we engage in a two-tiered review.³ In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and then, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. Findings are clearly erroneous when there are no facts or inferences to be drawn therefrom that support them. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the juvenile court's conclusions or the conclusions do not support the resulting judgment. Id.

[30] In addition, as a general rule, appellate courts grant latitude and deference to trial courts in family law matters. Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “This deference recognizes a trial court's unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court[ ] only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Id.

[31] Mother first argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the terminations because DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children's removal or the reasons for their placement outside the home will not be remedied; and (2) a continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children's well-being.

[32] However, we note that Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive. Therefore, DCS is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence only one of the three requirements of subsection (B). In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. dismissed. We therefore discuss only whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children's removal or the reasons for their placement outside the home will not be remedied.

[33] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child's removal or placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). We first identify the conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. The second step requires a trial court to judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing any recent improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. Habitual conduct may include a parent's prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and a lack of adequate housing and employment. A.D.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The trial court may also consider services offered to the parent by DCS and the parent's response to those services as evidence of whether conditions will be remedied. Id. Requiring a trial court to give due regard to changed conditions does not preclude them from finding that a parent's past behavior is the best predictor of his future behavior. E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643.

[34] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that DCS removed the children from Mother's home in June 2021 because of her drug use and because of the drug overdoses that had occurred in Mother's home. During the three-year pendency of the CHINS proceedings, Mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine. Further, although Mother completed an outpatient drug treatment program in June 2023, she tested positive for methamphetamine in September 2023. In addition, after DCS had filed the petitions to terminate her parental rights, Mother missed scheduled drug tests in December 2023 and February 2024. We further note that Father overdosed and died in Mother's home in March 2024 after DCS had filed the petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights. In addition, at the time of the March, April, and May 2024 termination hearings, Mother had not had contact with the children since December 2022 because of her positive drug screens. This evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children's removal or the reasons for their placement outside the home will not be remedied.

[35] Mother also argues that there is insufficient evidence that the terminations were in the children's best interests. In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the children's best interests, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the children involved. Id. In addition, a child's need for permanency is a central consideration in determining that child's best interests. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009), reh'g denied.

[36] We further note that the trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. C.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 15 N.E.3d 85, 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The recommendations of the family case manager and the CASA, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. Id.

[37] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that at the time of the termination hearing, six-year-old R.P., seven-year-old E.P., and thirteen-year-old A.C. had been out of Mother's home for three years. The evidence further reveals that the children were all very high need. Also, FCM Day and GAL Childers both recommended the termination of Mother's parental relationships with the children, and GAL Childers specifically testified that A.C. needed permanency. In addition, the trial court concluded that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal would not be remedied, and we found that the evidence supported that conclusion. The totality of this evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the termination of Mother's parent-child relationship with the children was in their best interests. There is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Mother's parental relationships with the children.⁴

[38] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A.C.’s father is J.C. The trial court also terminated his parental relationship with A.C.; however, he is not participating in this appeal. E.P.’s and R.P.’s father was C.P. (“Father”). He died of a drug overdose in Mother's home in March 2024.

2.   We note that the legislature amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 during the 2024 legislative session, and the amendment became effective March 11, 2024. In that 2024 amendment, the relevant statutory provisions of subsection (b) cited above appear in subsection (d). Because the amendment took effect after DCS filed the petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights, the amendment does not apply to this case. Additionally, we note that the legislature further amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 during the 2025 legislative session, and that amendment became effective July 1, 2025. The 2025 amendment likewise does not apply to this case.

3.   Mother challenges twelve findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating her parental relationship with A.C. and twenty-one findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating her parental relationship with E.P. and R.P. Mother specifically contends that the evidence does not support these findings. However, beyond, this generalized claim, Mother does not develop her argument or include any citations to the record or legal authority. An appellant who fails to support her arguments with appropriate citations to the record and legal authority waives those arguments for our review. Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023). Because Mother has failed to develop her arguments and include citations to the record to support them, Mother has waived appellate review of her arguments. Waiver notwithstanding, we have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and have determined that the evidence supports the challenged findings of fact.

4.   Mother also makes a cursory argument that there is not a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children because “E.P. and R.P. are not in pre-adoptive homes and A.C. did not want to be adopted.” (Mother's Br. 14). However, this Court has previously explained that “for a plan to be satisfactory, for the purposes of the termination statute, it need not be detailed so long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated.” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (cleaned up), trans. denied. Specifically, a DCS plan is satisfactory if the plan is to attempt to find suitable parents to adopt the child. Id. In other words, there need not be a guarantee that a suitable adoption will take place, only that DCS will attempt to find a suitable parent. Id. Accordingly, a plan is not unsatisfactory if DCS has not identified a specific family to adopt the children. Id. Part of the reason for this is that it is within the authority of the adoption court, not the termination court, to determine whether an adoptive placement is appropriate. Id. Based on these standards, DCS’ plan for the children was satisfactory. See id.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur.