P.W., Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] P.W. (Father) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to his minor children, J.E.W. and B.W. (collectively, the Children).¹ Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Father and Mother (collectively, Parents) are married and have two children together, J.E.W. born in June 2020 and B.W. born in August 2022. The family lived in Illinois until shortly after B.W.’s birth, when they moved to Portage, Indiana. Prior to the move, the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services (Illinois DCFS) had been involved with the family due to Mother's long history of illegal drug use.² J.E.W. was a ward of the Illinois DCFS for about twelve months and then returned to Mother and Father in January 2022, with the case closed in May 2022. Shortly thereafter, Mother relapsed on cocaine and heroin, resulting in B.W. being born drug exposed and experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

[4] After the family's move to Indiana, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) conducted three separate assessments involving Mother's reported drug use. This culminated on March 12, 2023, with DCS receiving a report that Mother had overdosed in the family home, and Father had to administer Narcan and call 911. That same day, Vanessa Kincaid, a DCS family case manager (FCM), went to the home to investigate the report. Parents indicated that they were following a safety plan developed with another FCM and that Mother had not used drugs or overdosed. Mother agreed to take an oral drug screen.

[5] When Mother's drug screen came back positive for, among other things, cocaine and fentanyl on March 27, FCM Kincaid called Father and expressed concern for the Children's safety. Father called back the next morning and stated that he had made Mother leave the home and that he was willing to work with DCS to address Mother's drug problem and ensure the safety of the Children. On March 28, Father agreed to participate in an informal adjustment and to keep Mother out of the home until a plan could be developed to provide services to Mother. With Father's consent, drug screens were conducted on Father and the Children.

[6] On March 30, FCM Kincaid learned that Father had not followed the safety plan, and Mother was back in the home. DCS immediately restricted Mother's access to the Children and then on April 3, 2023, filed a petition alleging that the Children were children in need of services (CHINS). Following a hearing, the CHINS court authorized the Children's continued removal from Mother and placement with Father.

[7] Thereafter, on April 10, 2023, DCS received the test results for Father and the Children. All three tested positive for fentanyl, cocaine, and cocaine metabolites.³ DCS removed the Children from Father's care on an emergency basis that same day and then DCS filed an amended CHINS petition. The CHINS court authorized the Children's continued removal from Parents’ care at a detention hearing on April 11, 2023. The Children have remained out of Parents’ home since this time.

[8] At a hearing on May 25, 2023, Mother admitted the allegations in the amended CHINS petition, and the Children were adjudicated CHINS. By agreement of the parties, the matter then proceeded directly to a dispositional hearing. The CHINS court ordered Father to stay in weekly contact with the FCM, participate in supervised visits, complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations, and submit to random drug screens. Regarding substances, the court required that Father:

Not use, consume, manufacture, trade, distribute or sell any illegal controlled substances, and will only take prescription medications for which a valid and current prescription exists and then only in the doses and frequencies specified in the prescription. Not permit the possession, use or consumption of any illegal controlled substances in the home or in the presence of the children.

Exhibit Vol. 1 at 22. The dispositional order was the same for Mother with the additional requirements that she complete a substance abuse assessment and participate in individual therapy.

[9] Throughout the life of the CHINS case, Mother continued to struggle with sobriety, and her drug use resulted in numerous arrests and criminal charges, some resulting in convictions, between June 2023 and October 2024. Mother overdosed in the family home in February and March 2024.

[10] Father failed to comply with any random drug screens until after the first review hearing in August 2023, and then during the next three-month review period he submitted to nine screens and missed two. Of the nine screens he tested positive five times for illegal substances. The order from the review hearing in November 2023 also noted that supervised visits had been moved out of Parents’ home and into the community due to Parents’ behavior during visits in the home,⁴ Mother had refused a recommended treatment program after completing inpatient detox, and Parents were not cooperating with other services. In its November 2023 order, the CHINS court changed the permanency plan for the Children to include a concurrent plan of adoption.

[11] At a permanency hearing on March 14, 2024, the CHINS court reaffirmed the permanency plan of reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. In its order, the court observed that Father, unlike Mother, had complied with the case plan since the last hearing. The court made the following findings with regard to Father:

Father participates in home-based casework services, individual therapy, random drug screens, and supervised visitation. During this reporting period, all of Father's drug screens returned negative for all illegal substances. Father has a new residence and is in the process of moving appliances from one home to the other. Father consistently attends visitation with the children. When Father attends visits without Mother, he relies on the service provider to help him with the children. Father initially did not want to participate in parenting education because he said he did a parenting education program a year ago with Illinois DCFS. Father now reports that he is willing to participate in and complete the ordered parenting education. Father continues to support Mother; however, he informed the Court that if Mother does not stop using drugs so that she can be a mother and a wife, then he is going to move forward without her and take care of the children on his own.

Id. at 11.

[12] By the next review hearing on June 20, 2024, Father had several positive drug screens and, despite participating in services, had not made much progress toward reunification. Mother had been incarcerated during the entire reporting period. In its order, the CHINS court found in part:

Father has physical limitations and difficulty providing care for the children on his own and he fails to maintain sobriety. He participates in home-based casework services, individual therapy, parenting education, and random drug screens. Father's drug screens taken on March 5, 2024 and April 23, 2024 returned positive for cocaine and fentanyl and the hair follicle collected on April 12, 2024 returned positive for cocaine.

Id. at 6. The court changed the permanency plan to adoption, and DCS filed the instant petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children that same day.

[13] Thereafter, Father had a hair-follicle drug screen on July 31, 2024, which was negative for all substances. But his subsequent hair-follicle drug screen on October 31, returned positive for cocaine. Additionally, Mother tested positive for, among other things, cocaine and methamphetamine on November 21, 2024, which was less than a month after completing a twenty-eight-day inpatient treatment program that she began after another stint in jail on new criminal charges in August.

[14] The factfinding hearing in the termination case took place on December 5, 2024. At the beginning of the hearing, Mother provided the trial court with consents, signed by her, for the adoption of the Children. Mother informed the court that she believed adoption was in the Children's best interests because she could not take care of herself, let alone the Children. Mother claimed to be doing great with her sobriety, but when questioned by the court, she could not recall her sobriety date or how long she had been sober. After accepting Mother's consents to adopt, the court proceeded with the factfinding hearing as to Father.

[15] In addition to submitting into evidence drug results for both Mother and Father and records from the CHINS proceedings, DCS called several witnesses. One such witness was Jacqueline Ahearne, a licensed therapist who provided Father with in-home individual therapy for an hour each week from February 2024 through October 2024. Ahearne testified that Father made no progress in therapy because he failed to take accountability for his positive drug screens or his verbal abuse of Mother. Ahearne believed that Father was controlling of Mother and that he interfered with Mother's therapy. Ahearne terminated her services based on Father's increasingly combative behavior during sessions and due to an incident with Mother's in-home therapist wherein Father threatened to come out of his room unclothed if the therapist did not end the session. Ultimately, Ahearne testified that she believed termination of parental rights was in the Children's best interests “due to the combative behavior, issue with anger management from [Father], as well as substance abuse for both [Father] and [Mother].” Transcript at 23.

[16] FCM April Ward, assigned to the case since March 2024, testified that despite participating in services, Father had made no progress toward reunification because he refused to take accountability for his own actions. FCM Ward described Father as aggressive and angry with her, mostly surrounding drug screens. He steadfastly rejected the results of each positive drug screen. Regarding Father's visits with the Children, FCM Ward indicated that they were never able to progress past supervised visits. She testified that the Children were currently in a pre-adoptive foster home that offers them a safe, stable home free of neglect and substance abuse. FCM Ward opined that termination of Father's parental rights was in the Children's best interests and that it was unlikely that the reasons for their placement outside Father's home would be remedied given Father's lack of progress with services and his continued drug use. FCM Ward also noted that Mother and Father continued to live together.

[17] Natalie Thorgren, the CASA since April 2023, testified that Father never took accountability and that while Mother tried to take accountability, she struggled with sobriety and had “multiple arrests and failed rehabs.” Id. at 65. CASA Thorgren described supervised visits as “very combative” with Father's behavior resulting in frequent turnover of supervisors. Id. at 66. When she attended a visit the week before the hearing, CASA Thorgren observed that Father was “visibly angry and shaken” inside the McDonald's PlayPlace. Id. at 67. He became increasingly frustrated as Mother continued a call with her doctor, slamming his hand against the wall and yelling at her to get off the phone. When she ended the call, Father said he was walking home and began walking down the highway. He later returned because he could not find his house keys and yelled at Mother for “talking to the enemy.” Id at 68. B.W. brought Father a bag of cookies, but he “ripped the cookies out of [B.W.’s] hand, and threw them in the garbage.” Id. In sum, CASA Thorgren opined that Parents had not made any progress toward a safe and stable reunification with the Children and that termination of parental rights was in the Children's best interests because they deserve “a safe and loving stable home free from substance abuse and [ ] anger issues.” Id. at 70.

[18] After DCS rested its case, Father testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged that he had used cocaine in the past but claimed that he had not used it for some time and that the positive random screens obtained by DCS were inaccurate. Regarding the October 2024 hair-follicle test that was positive for cocaine, Father noted that he had moved residences earlier in the year and explained, “I might have touched something in that home and that's how it possibly got into my system.” Id. at 74. Curiously, Father placed into evidence a private hair-follicle test that he submitted to in late November 2024, which also reflected a positive result for cocaine. Father again suggested that there must have been cocaine residue that he touched while moving furniture from one home to the other.

[19] Father acknowledged that he still lived with Mother and that she had signed adoption consents. Disagreeing with Mother's opinion that adoption was in the Children's best interests, Father testified: “I think that -- uh -- my wife is on the road to recovery and she can take care of our kids and I'm here to take and support her and do whatever we have to do to take and keep our kids in a safe and loving environment.” Id. at 83.

[20] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered the termination of Father's parental rights. The court noted the evidence of Mother's continued substance abuse and failure to remedy the reasons leading to the Children's removal, which it found to be significant because Parents were a “package deal” as they were married and continued to live together. Id. at 93. The court also referenced Father's positive drug screens in October and November 2024 and stated that even if Father's theory was true that he was cocaine positive through contact with furniture, this would be reflective of the home environment containing illegal drugs. The subsequent written order, issued on February 27, 2025, however, made clear that the court believed Father had indeed used cocaine. The order provided in part:

Father fails to maintain his sobriety and fails to acknowledge and address his substance abuse. Father and Mother continue to struggle with sobriety ․. They remain married and co-dependent on each other․. Father continuously denied drug use despite all of the positive drug screen results, denied enabling Mother with her drug use, and believed the DCS tests and/or results were incorrect. Father completed his own hair follicle drug screen through the United State Drug Testing laboratory on November 30, 2024. The results returned positive for Cocaine ․. Father has not demonstrated that he can be a safe, sober caregiver for the children.

***

There is no evidence to show that Father has addressed his substance abuse or that he can adequately provide for the daily care of the children. Father failed to progress in the case plan of reunification because he failed to take accountability for his role in the reasons for removal and continued removal of the children. Father did successfully complete parenting education. Father participated in individual therapy, home-based casework, and meetings with DCS; however, Father often became verbally aggressive when confronted by his drug screen results or his need to take accountability.

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the children have been removed from Father and Mother for a period of over nineteen (19) months and that there is a reasonable probability that Father cannot remedy the reasons for the children's removal due to his lack of progress in services, lack of accountability and change, and lack of sobriety. Substance abuse and neglect of the children were present at the time of the DCS intervention and are still present today. Father continues to abuse illegal substances, failed to successfully complete services, and has no ability to provide care for or meet the daily needs of the children on his own or with Mother.

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable probability that continuing the parent-child relationship would pose a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health or life of the children because of Father's failed progress in services and sobriety. Impaired caregivers cannot meet the needs of the children and cannot provide the children with a healthy home environment. The children were exposed to and tested positive for Cocaine and Fentanyl while in Mother and Father's care and yet, Father continues to test positive for Cocaine. The hostility, anger and aggression Father has toward others and displays in front of the children also poses a danger to their mental and emotional well-being.

Appendix at 62-64. The court also found that termination of parental rights was in the Children's best interests and that DCS has a satisfactory plan for their care and treatment, which is adoption by their foster parents.

[21] Father now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[22] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and thus we will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019). In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside its judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[23] Our review for clear error is confined to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). Reviewing whether the evidence “clearly and convincingly” supports the findings, or the findings “clearly and convincingly” support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014) (observing that weighing the evidence under the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable to termination cases is the trial court's prerogative, not ours). Further, we must accept any unchallenged findings as true. See Matter of To.R., 177 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

Discussion & Decision

[24] Although parental rights are of constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In addition, a court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. In re J.W., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[25] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS must allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of one or more of the circumstances described in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d) (Subsection (d)); (2) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child(ren); and (3) termination is in the child(ren)’s best interests. I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c); I.C. § 31-34-12-2. Subsection (d) contains thirteen circumstances supporting termination. The following three circumstances listed in Subsection (d) were alleged by DCS and found proven by the trial court:

(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, 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 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.

[26] Father initially challenges the trial court's determinations under Subsection (b). While three circumstances were alleged in this case, we observe that any one of them would be sufficient on its own. In other words, if we affirm one of the circumstances found by the trial court, we need not address the others. See In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[27] We thus turn to the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the Children's removal from or continued placement outside of Parents’ home will not be remedied.

When determining whether a reasonable probability exists that the conditions justifying a child's removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness to care for his or her children at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions. In so doing, the trial court may consider the parent's response to the services offered through DCS. A pattern of unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with those providing social services, in conjunction with unchanged conditions, support a finding that there exists no reasonable probability that the conditions will change.

Id. (quoting In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 18-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied) (brackets omitted).

[28] The Children were removed from Parents’ home based on neglect due to substance abuse, and as the case evolved, it became apparent that both Mother and Father were using illegal drugs. On appeal, Father does not dispute that he had many positive drug screens (both oral and hair-follicle tests) “throughout the DCS proceedings,” but he notes that he also had negative screens, which he claims are reflective of him making “attempts at sobriety.” Appellant's Brief at 17. Father also references his testimony at the termination hearing that he was no longer using cocaine and that he believed the recent positive tests “could be the result of accidental exposure to residue when moving residences.” Id. And Father complains that, unlike Mother, he was never ordered to complete a substance use disorder assessment and recommended treatment, which could have helped him remedy this issue.

[29] It is well established that a parent “may not sit idly by without asserting a need or desire for services and then successfully argue that he was denied services to assist him with his parenting.” J.W., 259 N.E.3d at 1048 (quoting In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). Further, DCS's failure to provide certain services during CHINS proceedings may not serve as a basis on which to directly attack a termination order. Id.

[30] The record establishes that Father refused to take accountability for his own drug use or for his role in the Children's continued removal from Parents’ home. Father participated in court-ordered services, but he failed to make significant progress toward reunification due to his combativeness with service providers and failure to maintain sobriety. The trial court's finding that Father continued to abuse illegal substances is supported by drug screens that were positive for cocaine in the weeks leading up to the termination hearing. Further, Father's own testimony at the hearing reflects his lack of insight into Mother's ongoing substance abuse and her resulting inability to safely parent the Children. At the time of the hearing, Mother and Father continued to live together and were co-dependent on each other, both still struggling with sobriety and failing to make significant progress despite about nineteen months of services offered pursuant to the CHINS dispositional order.

[31] We agree with DCS that Father's arguments amount to an improper request to reweigh the evidence. Father has failed to establish clear error with respect to the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions keeping the Children out of Parents’ home will not be remedied. Because we conclude that I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d)(3) was sufficiently established, we do not address the alternative bases under Subsection (d) in the trial court's termination order.

[32] Finally, we address Father's challenge to the trial court's determination that termination of his parental rights is in the Children's best interests. When making a best-interest determination, a trial court must look at the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, subordinate the parent's interests to those of the child, with the child's need for permanency being a central consideration. See Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. Further, “we have previously held that recommendations of the case manager and court-appointed advocate, 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 of parental rights is in a child's best interests[.]” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[33] Here, the trial court relied on the opinions of FCM Ward and CASA Thorgren that termination of Father's parental rights was in the Children's best interests. The court explained further:

The children are in need of a safe, stable home environment that is free from substance abuse and neglect and that can meet the children's individual daily needs. Father is unable to provide this for the children. Father continues to abuse illegal substances, failed to address his anger issues, and has physical limitations that prevent him from providing care for the children. The environment that Mother and Father provided for the children prior to removal was one of exposure to drugs and potentially domestic violence. The children tested positive for Cocaine and Fentanyl in Mother and Father's care. Parents failed to put the needs of the children before their own and failed to progress in services and visitation to reunify.

Appendix at 65.

[34] In challenging the trial court's determination in this regard, Father contests that he has physical limitations that hinder his ability to safely and appropriately care for the Children. He also rejects the notion that he failed to put the needs of the Children before his own, claiming that he showed his dedication to reunification through his regular participation in services and supervised visits.

[35] Again, we reject Father's invitation to reweigh the evidence. The CHINS orders, contained in Exhibit 1, have references to Father's reliance on service providers to “help him” with the Children when Mother was not present for visits, “physical limitations [that] hinder[ed] his ability to be a safe and appropriate care giver” during visits, and his “inability to address [B.W.’s] behavioral needs” during a “meltdown” that caused the visit to end early. Exhibit Vol. 1 at 11 (March 2024 order), 7 (June 2024 order), and 4 (October 2024 order). And though he participated in services and supervised visits, the record shows that he failed in many ways to put the Children's needs before his own. Such failure is reflected in his use of cocaine, as well as in his combativeness with service providers and his inappropriate behavior in front of the Children during the supervised visit at McDonald's shortly before the termination hearing.

[36] The trial court properly considered the totality of the evidence and the Children's need for permanency when determining that termination was in their best interests. This conclusion was supported by the opinion of FCM Ward and CASA Thorgren, as well as Father's own therapist and Mother, and the showing that the conditions resulting in removal and continued placement outside Parents’ home are not likely to be remedied. The trial court's best-interest determination was not clearly erroneous.⁵

[37] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   J.W. (Mother) signed consents for the Children to be adopted and thus does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Mother has an older son who resides with her mother under a legal guardianship that resulted from Illinois DCFS involvement due to Mother's continued substance abuse.

3.   Father tested positive for cocaine at a level of >1000 ng/ml and fentanyl at 6.76 ng/ml. B.W. tested positive for cocaine at a level of 71.8 ng/ml and fentanyl at .72 ng/ml. J.E.W. tested positive for cocaine at a level of 80.5 ng/ml and fentanyl at 5.15 ng/ml.

4.   Mother and Father both left the Children alone with the visit supervisor in the home.

5.   Father does not challenge the trial court's conclusion that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, which is adoption by their foster parents. The Children are thriving in the foster home and the foster parents are willing and able to adopt them.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Bailey and Pyle concur. Bailey, J. and Pyle, J., concur.