J.R.C. (Father) and A.S. (Mother), Appellants-Respondents v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.R.C. (“Father”) and A.S. (“Mother” and together with Father, “Parents”) appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their minor child, Z.R.C. (“Child”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Child was born to Parents in December 2013. On January 3, 2022, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Specifically, the petition alleged that Mother was incarcerated for probation violations and pending criminal charges, Child had missed over twenty-five days of school and had not attended school in the previous two weeks while residing with Father, and Parents had not provided necessary vaccinations or dental care to Child.¹ Following an initial hearing, DCS filed an amended CHINS petition notifying the court that Child had been removed from Father's home after Father was arrested for a probation violation and new criminal charges, leaving no caregiver for Child. The court held a factfinding hearing on September 21, 2022. Prior to the hearing, Mother signed a stipulation and agreed dispositional order admitting Child was a CHINS. On November 4, 2022, the court also adjudicated Child a CHINS as to Father, finding that he “had a substance abuse issue which impaired his ability to provide a safe home free from abuse or neglect.” Mother's Appendix Volume II at 82. On November 21, 2022, the court entered a dispositional decree ordering Parents to participate in reunification services. The court ordered Father to participate in a substance abuse assessment, outpatient treatment, home-based case management, random drug screens, and supervised visitation. The court ordered Mother to participate in domestic violence victim services, a substance abuse assessment, outpatient treatment, home-based case management, random drug screens, and supervised visitation.

[3] The court held a review hearing on February 15, 2023. The evidence indicated that Father had visited with Child but then “no showed” for other visits. Id. at 94. The evidence further indicated that Father lacked stable housing because he was being evicted. Mother had been referred for domestic violence and home based case management services but had failed to engage with those services. She also had a motion to revoke her probation in a pending criminal case, she tested positive for methadone and THC twice during the reporting period, and she failed to submit to additional screens. The court found that Parents had only partially complied with Child's case plan and that neither Parent had “enhanced their ability to fulfill their parental obligations.” Id.

[4] The court held additional review hearings on May 24, 2023, August 23, 2023, November 29, 2023, March 20, 2024, and September 25, 2024. Following the May 24th hearing, the court approved a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption. Although Parents had periods during which they made some improvements,² following the September 25th hearing, the court found that neither Father nor Mother had complied with Child's case plan and neither had enhanced their ability to fulfill their parental obligations. Father tested positive for methamphetamine four times and twice for norbuprenorphine during the reporting period. Father additionally “had four presumed positive drug screens this reporting period due to not showing up for requested drug screens.” Id. at 108. Father visited with Child, but Father had been arrested and was incarcerated at the time of the hearing. Mother was incarcerated from February 13, 2024, to May 4, 2024, for a probation violation and had not reengaged in services following her release. Mother tested positive for Clonazepam during the reporting period and did not visit with Child.

[5] On July 31, 2024, DCS filed a verified petition to terminate both Father's and Mother's parental rights. On January 22, 2025, the court held a termination factfinding hearing. Father was incarcerated at the time of the hearing, but counsel appeared. Mother appeared with counsel. DCS presented the testimony of Child's therapist Paige Huffman, numerous service providers who had worked or attempted to work with Parents, Family Case Manager Jennifer Starr (“FCM Starr”), and Court Appointed Special Advocate Jessica Olsen (“CASA Olsen”). Father presented no witnesses. Mother testified on her own behalf.

[6] On January 31, 2025, the court entered a detailed order terminating the parent-child relationship between Parents and Child. Among other things, the court found:

15. A clear pattern has emerged, wherein Mother and Father repeatedly run afoul of the criminal justice system (either through new criminal charges, or violations of the terms of their probation), and fail to submit to random drug screens/refrain from using illegal substances; these recurring patterns of behavior disrupt [Child's] visits with Mother and Father, disrupt reunification efforts, and have disrupted two trial home visits (one with each parent), leading to significant instability for [Child].

* * * * *

19. This ongoing pattern of criminal behavior from Mother and Father, and the effects that pattern has on Mother's and Father's relationship with [Child], has undoubtedly impacted [Child] over the three-plus years the CHINS has remained open.

* * * * *

34. [Child] is entitled to permanency, and it would be contrary to his best interests to provide Mother and Father more time to comply with the dispositional order, as ample time has already been afforded to them and there is no indication that more time would yield different results.

Id. at 128. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or continued placement outside Parents’ care would not be remedied; termination of Parents’ parental rights was in Child's best interests; and there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of Child, that being adoption.

Discussion

[7] Parents each challenge the termination of their parental rights. Regarding petitions seeking the termination of parental rights, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 ³ provides in pertinent part that DCS must allege as follows:

(c) A petition filed under subsection (a) 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.

(d) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances:[4]

* * * * *

(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.

[8] If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a). A finding in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2. We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014). We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. We give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. Id. “Because a case that seems close on a ‘dry record’ may have been much more clear-cut in person, we must be careful not to substitute our judgment for the trial court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at 640. To the extent Parents do not challenge the court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[9] Both Father's and Mother's sole challenge on appeal is to the trial court's conclusion that termination of their rights is in Child's best interests. Father argues that reversal is warranted because there was evidence that Child “was well bonded” to Parents and was “doing well in foster care” such that termination was unnecessary. Father's Brief at 14. Mother argues that she and Child “maintained a very close bond since removal” and, by the time of the termination hearing, she “had achieved stable housing and employment.” Mother's Brief at 10.

[10] In determining the best interests of children, the trial court is required to look to the totality of the evidence. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child. Id. The court need not wait until children are irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. The recommendation of a case manager and child advocate to terminate parental rights, 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.⁵ A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Indeed, a court may consider evidence of a parent's prior criminal history, drug abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, lack of adequate housing and employment, and the services offered by DCS and the parent's response to those services. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Where there are only temporary improvements and the pattern of conduct shows no overall progress, the court might reasonably find that under the circumstances the problematic situation will not improve. Id. “A parent's historical inability to provide adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests.” Castro v. State Off. of Fam. & Child., 842 N.E.2d 367, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

[11] Here, CASA Olsen opined that termination of both Father's and Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interests. She testified that this was the “longest” CHINS case she had ever been assigned and that she had seen Child “have no stability” for “over three years.” Transcript Volume II at 88. CASA Olsen stated that she believed Child “needs and deserves protection,” and that he was being “held back” by the fear of the “choices” Parents were continually making that jeopardized his safety or “sends them ․ to jail.” Id. She emphasized that “[Parents] have been given multiple opportunities to show the Court that they are willing to take this job as the parent of [Child] and they have failed.” Id. at 89. Similarly, FCM Starr opined that termination of Parents’ rights and adoption was in Child's best interests. She noted that, “due to the history and the length of the case and the patterns of behavior,” Child is “entitled to” the permanency of a “safe home and stable lifestyle.” Id. at 67.

[12] In light of the unchallenged findings and evidence set forth above and in the record outlining Parents’ ongoing pattern of criminal behavior and historical inability to provide safety and stability to Child, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding that termination of both Father's and Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests.

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's termination order.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition noted that Child was “missing several teeth with others appearing decayed.” Mother's Appendix Volume II at 78.

2.   Mother was permitted a trial home visit with Child in November 2023 that was terminated on February 8, 2024, after Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. At the March 20, 2024, review hearing, Mother remained incarcerated. Father had an apartment and was employed. Accordingly, Father was permitted a trial home visit with Child that began in June 2024. However, the visit was terminated on August 1, 2024, after Father tested positive for methamphetamine.

3.   We note that Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 was amended March 11, 2024. Pub. L. No. 70-2024, § 4 (eff. March 11, 2024). Father refers to the amended version of the statute while Mother appears to refer to the prior version of the statute. As DCS filed the termination petition on July 31, 2024, there is no question that the amended version of the statute applies here.

4.   Although Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d) contains twelve items DCS may allege in a petition to terminate a parent-child relationship, in this case the relevant allegations made by DCS are contained in subsections (2) and (3).

5.   Neither Parent challenges the trial court's extensive findings of fact, including those findings regarding each of their failures to remedy the conditions that led to Child's removal. Accordingly, those facts stand as proven. Indeed, Father concedes that “he had not completely remedied the reason for [Child's] removal at the time of the termination hearing.” Father's Brief at 12. Mother concedes that “the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the evidence.” Mother's Brief at 8.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.