IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.P. (Father) and C.P. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] L.P. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, C.P. (“Child”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and C.S. (“Mother”) are the parents of Child, born in June 2020. Mother consented to Child's adoption and therefore does not participate in this appeal. The Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved with the family shortly after Child's birth due to allegations that Child “was born a drug-exposed infant.” Ex. p. 17. DCS filed a petition alleging Child was in need of services (CHINS) on June 25 and placed Child in relative care the next day. In September 2020, upon admissions by both parents, the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. The CHINS case was closed in June 2021, and Child was reunified with Mother (Father was incarcerated at the time).

[3] In August 2022, DCS received a report that Mother was using illegal substances around Child and could not provide appropriate supervision. At the time, Father was in jail serving a sentence for Class A misdemeanor activity related to obscene performance. With no sober caregiver, DCS removed Child, placed him in foster care, and filed another CHINS petition. In December, Mother and Father admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. The court issued its dispositional order in March 2023 ordering Father to, among other things, complete substance-abuse and parenting assessments and any resulting recommendations, submit to random drug screens, attend visitation, and maintain contact with DCS. After several months in foster care, DCS placed Child in relative care. DCS later returned Child to the same foster home, where he has since remained.

[4] Father had been released from jail at the end of January 2023 but waited a month to meet with DCS. He was initially “very combative,” Tr. p. 15, and “did not understand why he was ordered to do services,” Ex. p. 45. DCS submitted referrals for home-based casework, supervised visitation, and a drug-and-alcohol assessment. Father completed a parenting assessment in May but never followed up with the recommended services. In October, he completed a drug-and-alcohol assessment but said during the assessment that “he didn't have a problem.” Tr. p. 22. Father didn't follow the recommendations from that assessment either and continued testing positive for illegal substances. Though he was consistent with visitation at first, he stopped attending in November. That same month, DCS put in a referral for individual therapy due to concerns of underlying mental-health issues, but Father only attended one appointment.

[5] Father's engagement with DCS “started to decline” in 2024. Id. at 17. Family Case Manager (FCM) Stephanie Dickerson “attempted to engage Father but was told to ‘never come back.’ ” Ex. p. 55. His referrals were closed for noncompliance, he continued testing positive for THC, methamphetamine, and amphetamine, and he didn't attend the March permanency hearing. Father resumed visitation in April, but during several visits, he made “some concerning statements” and displayed concerning “behaviors.” Tr. p. 18. Eventually, he stopped returning DCS's calls.

[6] In May 2024, DCS petitioned to terminate Father's parental rights to Child. After the petition was filed, Father completed intensive outpatient treatment, but even after that, he continued testing positive for illegal substances. The fact-finding hearing was originally scheduled for October, but the court continued it until February “to give [Father] an opportunity to provide six weeks of negative drug screens to show his sobriety.” Id. at 26. But in the 90 days leading up to the hearing, 22 of Father's 27 drug screens were positive.

[7] At the fact-finding hearing, FCM Dickerson testified that throughout the CHINS and termination proceedings, Father submitted 101 drug screens, and of those, 83 were positive. She opined that it's in Child's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated so that Child has “an opportunity to be in a safe, stable environment where DCS is not returning” for “the same issues over and over.” Id. at 32. FCM Dickerson further testified that adoption is in Child's best interests because his current placement, where he's been for the last 20 months, “is an appropriate home” and “provide[s] for all of [his] needs.” Id. at 33. Allison Snyder, Child's Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), also testified that termination is in Child's best interests because of Father's continued substance abuse and lack of engagement in services. CASA Snyder recommended adoption, explaining that Child is “very bonded with his placement” and is “able to have stability” there. Id. at 51.

[8] Following the hearing, the court terminated Father's parental rights to Child.

[9] Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Father argues there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id. When a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the court's findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. To determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous, we review whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings and whether the findings support the judgment. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1143 (Ind. 2016).

[11] DCS filed its termination petition under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4. A petition under that section must allege:

(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).¹ DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231. If the trial court finds the allegations are true, “the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a).

[12] Here, DCS alleged, and the trial court found, that the following circumstances in Section 31-35-2-4(d) exist:

(2) That:

(A) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months ․; and

(B) despite the department'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.

See Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. Father does not challenge any of these circumstances or that there is a satisfactory plan for Child's care and treatment, so we need only consider whether termination is in Child's best interests.

[13] In determining whether termination is in a child's best interests, the trial court must look at the totality of the evidence and subordinate the parent's interests to those of the child. In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019), reh'g denied. Central among these interests is the child's need for permanency, as “children cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.” Id. We have held that recommendations by both the case manager and child advocate, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[14] Here, both FCM Dickerson and CASA Snyder recommended termination, believing it to be in Child's best interests. Additionally, Father has not shown an ability to provide a stable, drug-free environment for Child. Though Father completed parenting and drug-and-alcohol assessments, he didn't follow through with the recommended services. And he continued using illegal substances throughout the CHINS and termination proceedings—83 of his 101 drug screens were positive. Father didn't attend visitation from November 2023 to April 2024, and when he was participating in visitation, he made concerning statements and displayed concerning behaviors during some visits. Although he completed intensive outpatient treatment, he didn't do so until after the termination petition was filed, and he continued testing positive for illegal substances afterward. Father's issues with substance abuse have not been remedied and pose a safety risk to Child if he were in Father's care. See id. at 1006 (finding termination of parental rights in children's best interests where parents did not address their substance-abuse issues or complete recommended services during the two-year case), trans. denied.

[15] While this evidence alone is sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion, permanency is a central consideration in determining Child's best interests. Child, now five, has never been in Father's care—he has either been in foster care, relative care, or in Mother's care while Father was incarcerated. In contrast, for over two years Child has been with the same foster family, to whom he is bonded and who wish to adopt him. Father contends “[t]here was no additional harm to be had in maintaining the CHINS case to allow [him] to enter an inpatient treatment program to adequately address his drug use.” Appellant's Br. p. 16. But from his release from jail in January 2023 to the fact-finding hearing in February 2025, Father had over two years to enter inpatient treatment, yet he never did. And even after he completed intensive outpatient treatment, his drug use continued. Father is asking for one more chance, but the trial court already gave him another chance when it continued the fact-finding hearing to allow him to provide consistent negative drug screens. Despite this chance, of the 27 drug screens Father submitted in the 90 days leading up to the hearing, 22 were positive. The trial court was not required to wait on Father any longer. See Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. The evidence supports the court's conclusion that termination is in Child's best interests.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Section 31-35-2-4 was amended effective July 1, 2025, several months after the termination order was issued in this case. See Pub. L. No. 179-2025, § 25. Neither party argues that this amendment has any bearing on the proceedings.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and Felix concur. Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.