IN RE: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.K. (Minor Child) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] B.K. (“Mother”) appeals the Tippecanoe Superior Court's termination of her parental rights over her minor daughter A.K. (“Child”). Mother presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her last-minute motion to continue the final hearing on the termination petition filed by the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother gave birth to Child on June 15, 2018. Mother's husband and Child's father, D.K. (“Father”), died in 2022. Mother and Father shared a history of substance abuse.

[4] In October 2023, law enforcement officers investigated a report of shots fired at Mother's house in Lafayette. During a search of Mother's house, officers found “a box on the back of the toilet that contained multiple syringes, methamphetamine, heroin, and paraphernalia ․ within the reach of [Child].” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 16. As a result, “Mother was arrested for dealing a narcotic drug, possession of methamphetamine, neglect of a dependent, and possession of paraphernalia.” Id. DCS promptly removed Child from Mother's care and placed her in foster care. On October 27, a “hair drug screen” of Child's hair tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. Id. And Mother's drug screen was positive for methamphetamine and norfentanyl.

[5] On November 21, Mother underwent a substance abuse assessment.

Mother arrived two (2) hours late to the assessment. During the assessment, Mother reported a history of using the following substances: cannabis (age 11), alcohol (age 12), cocaine (age 14), opioids (age 14), sedatives (age 17), hallucinogens (age 22), stimulants (age 28), and methamphetamine (age 35). Mother acknowledged the following consequences of her use: hangovers, DTs/shakes, blackouts, binges, increased tolerance, sleep problems, seizures, relationship problems, left school, lost job, assaults, arrests, and incarcerations. Mother also admitted that she has traded sex for drugs. Mother reported a prior attempt at substance use treatment through a twenty-eight (28) day program while she was in Florida approximately ten (10) years ago. She stated her longest period of sobriety was six (6) years from 2016 to 2021. Mother reported being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, borderline personality disorder, depression, and ADHD. She previously attempted suicide when she was fourteen (14) years old and seventeen (17) years old. Mother submitted to a drug screen as part of the assessment and it was positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. It was recommended that Mother participate in [an] Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), Recovery Management/Coaching, Recovery Fellowship, drug screens two (2) times per week, individual therapy, and a mental health assessment with psychiatric clinical assessment.

Id. at 17.

[6] On November 27, the trial court found that Child was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) following a hearing. And the court ordered the following services for Mother: “home-based case management, clinical interview and assessment, individual counseling, substance use disorder assessment, intensive outpatient treatment (IOT), random drug screens, and visitation. Additionally, [the] Court ordered DCS to fund inpatient treatment for Mother if she wished to participate.” Id. at 16.

[7] Mother was twice unsuccessfully discharged from home-based case management services due to “chronic lateness and disrespectful verbal exchanges” with staff, as well as “non-compliance and hostility” toward staff. Id. And because Mother continued to test positive for various drugs, in November 2023, the trial court suspended Mother's in-person visits with Child. Thereafter, Mother's visits with Child were exclusively virtual.

[8] In October 2024, the trial court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption and authorized DCS to file a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights over Child, which it did on October 30. During the evidentiary hearing on the termination petition in December, Mother's counsel stated that Mother was attempting to check herself in to an inpatient treatment program that morning but that counsel had “informed her that she needs to start driving [to the courtroom].” Tr. p. 4. Mother's counsel moved to continue the hearing until later in January to “see if she actually gets to inpatient and starts to make progress.” Id. DCS agreed with Mother's counsel to continue the hearing, but the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) expressed concern about meeting the ninety-day deadline imposed by Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6.¹

[9] After some discussion, the trial court concluded that the first available date to reschedule the hearing was February 26, 2025. DCS agreed to that date, but the CASA objected. The trial court thus denied Mother's motion to continue the hearing. Still, the court delayed the hearing by thirty minutes to wait for Mother to arrive. Mother arrived shortly after the hearing began,² she was able to testify, and her counsel was present for the entire hearing.

[10] Following the hearing, the trial court made extensive findings and conclusions, including the following:

18. DCS made arrangements for Mother to participate in Phoenix Paramedic Solutions, a community-based addictions support program. Mother met with the peer support individual assigned to her but indicated to DCS that she did not feel comfortable continuing with the service. Mother did not participate further in any recovery coaching program through DCS.

19. DCS placed a referral for IOP with HGCF to begin on November 28, 2023. Mother failed to start services and indicated she had a panic attack as she was walking out the door. She was discharged from this provider. It was later recommended that Mother participate in individual treatment. On September 30, 2024, Mother completed an assessment at Sycamore Springs and Sycamore Springs was willing to take Mother as a patient. Mother refused to participate in the partial hospitalization program (PHP). Mother indicated multiple times throughout the CHINS case that she would start IOP or PHP. At other times, Mother stated that she could not participate in IOP or PHP because she suffered from anxiety in group sessions. Mother never completed IOP or PHP.

20. Mother participated in addiction therapy, including methadone treatment, through MedMark. DCS requested Mother sign a release of information for MedMark in November of 2023, but Mother failed to sign the release. She was not consistent in attending and Mother was dishonest with DCS about her attendance. On September 6, 2024, MedMark indicated that Mother was no longer a patient there, but they could not provide further information as Mother refused to sign a release. Mother indicated that she switched to CleanSlate, and she was using suboxone instead of methadone. Mother did not sign a release for CleanSlate either. Mother was reinstated at MedMark on October 7, 2024, and she signed a release of information. On December 2, 2024, MedMark indicated that Mother [had] missed thirty (30) days of dosing since she was reinstated and she should have been dosing daily. MedMark planned to begin tapering Mother off to discharge her due to inconsistency in dosing treatment, belligerent attitude shown more than once, and refusal to seek higher grade treatment as recommended. MedMark further indicated that all drug screens they completed with Mother were positive for illegal substances. Mother admitted that she missed multiple appointments with MedMark but claims she did not go because of how they treated her. Mother denies [that] methamphetamine use affected her demeanor or how she interacted with MedMark employees. Mother has since been discharged unsuccessfully from MedMark for the second time. Mother indicates she is currently in contact with methadone clinics in Kokomo and Indianapolis to try to obtain treatment. Mother indicated that she was previously clean for five (5) years with methadone treatment, but Mother was unable to maintain any sobriety during the CHINS case, even with methadone treatment.

21. DCS requested Mother to participate in inpatient treatment multiple times. At times, Mother agreed to participate in inpatient treatment, but then she failed to follow through with it. Often, however, Mother declined to participate and indicated that she could do it on her own through outpatient treatment or she provided excuses for not participating, such as [her] inability to pay rent, no one to watch her dog, or she needed to process her grief first. At the Permanency Hearing on June 11, 2024, [the] Court ordered DCS to pay for one (1) month [of] rent for Mother if she decided to go to inpatient treatment. Further, Mother's home-based case manager and her case manager from MedMark both provided Mother with different options for the care of her dog while she attended inpatient treatment.

22. Arrangements were made for Mother to go to inpatient [treatment] on five (5) different occasions, but Mother failed to follow through each time. First, arrangements were made for Mother to enter Centerstone on July 12, 2024. At Centerstone, Mother would be allowed to continue her methadone while at inpatient treatment. Mother indicated she failed to go because her methadone levels had been reduced and she was getting sick. Next, MedMark made arrangements for Mother to go to Centerstone on November 18, 2024. Mother failed to go and said that her sister did not watch her dog as planned. A new date of November 26, 2024, was set up, but Mother failed to go again. Next, arrangements were made for Mother to go to inpatient treatment at Wooded Glenn [sic] on Wednesday, December 18, 2024, which was only two (2) days prior to the evidentiary hearing. Mother called and rescheduled transportation for the next day. At some point on Wednesday, December 18, 2024, Mother sent a text to Dustina (case manager at MedMark) that included the following language: “when I die and I said when not if when I die, I will haunt your f***ing a** till the day you f***ing take your last breath. And I hope every single day you are reminded that it's my blood on your hands that I lost my life because of you.” (CASA exhibit C-2). This message was forwarded to Family Case Manager (FCM) Serrano and CASA, which caused them concern about Mother's mental health. As a result, on December 19, 2024, CASA contacted law enforcement to check on Mother's well-being. Mother indicates that she had started driving to Wooded Glen when she was notified by her Ring camera that law enforcement was at her home, so she returned to talk to them in person. After speaking with law enforcement, Mother sent a message to FCM Serrano that she was on her way to Wooded Glen, but she never went. Mother acknowledges that she could have gone, but her emotions were “messed up” so she did not go. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on Thursday, Mother sent another message to FCM Serrano that she was checking herself into Sycamore Springs that night. Instead, Mother went to Sycamore Springs the next day, December 20, 2024, when she was due in court for the evidentiary hearing. Mother was never admitted to Sycamore Springs, and she never participated in any inpatient treatment.

23. Mother was referred for random drug screens with Cordant and instructed to call in daily. Mother consistently tested positive on her drug screens for amphetamine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. She also tested positive for heroin and/or cocaine on several occasions. Throughout the CHINS case, Mother missed at least forty (40) drug screens and only tested negative on fifteen (15) drug screens. Mother's last negative drug screen was on March 8, 2024, which was a year ago.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 17-19.

[11] The trial court concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the removal of Child from Mother's care or the reasons for the continued placement outside of Mother's home will not be remedied. In support, the trial court found that “Mother failed to address her substance use successfully or consistently participate in services. Mother failed to demonstrate that she can provide a safe and stable home free from illegal substances or that she can be a sober caregiver.” Id. at 21. The trial court also concluded that DCS has a satisfactory plan of adoption for the care and treatment of Child. And the court concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interests. Accordingly, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights over Child. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Mother does not challenge any of the trial court's findings or conclusions. Rather, Mother's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to continue the final hearing. A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to continue is subject to abuse of discretion review. C.C. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re K.W.), 12 N.E.3d 241, 243-44 (Ind. 2014). An abuse of discretion may be found in the denial of a motion for a continuance when the moving party has shown good cause for granting the motion, but no abuse of discretion will be found when the moving party has not demonstrated that he or she was prejudiced by the denial. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

[13] Mother argues that, by her attempt to admit herself into a treatment center the morning of the final hearing, she demonstrated good cause for the continuance. In support, Mother directs us to evidence showing that she and Child are bonded and that she has maintained steady employment and stable housing throughout the proceedings. Mother contends that “[t]he only obstacle to reunification during the CHINS case has been [her] addiction and drug use,” and the court should have given her the opportunity to attend the inpatient program before terminating her parental rights. Appellant's Br. at 12.

[14] However, as the trial court found, Mother had five prior opportunities to get inpatient treatment, but she “failed to follow through each time.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 18. Mother testified to various barriers to those prior attempts, including trouble finding someone to take care of her dog and her fear of group settings. Mother testified that in just the week prior to the final hearing she was too afraid to use the transportation provided to get her to the inpatient treatment center because she would not have “transportation back [home]” and because she is “more comfortable with [her] own vehicle.” Tr. p. 68. Mother also testified that she did not take advantage of prior opportunities for inpatient treatment because she “thought [she] could handle it and get clean without having to get into [an] inpatient[ program].” Id. As the trial court found, “Mother made excuses and blamed others for her continued drug use and lack of participation in services or treatment.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 20.

[15] Given Mother's failure to take advantage of five prior opportunities to attend an inpatient treatment program, as well as Mother's continued substance abuse throughout the proceedings, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not find good cause to continue the final hearing. Indeed, Mother admitted that she had last used methamphetamine “a day and a half” prior to the final hearing, and an “instant screen” during the final hearing was positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. Tr. pp. 67, 99.

[16] DCS family case manager Melissa Serrano testified that, based on her history with Mother, she had no “reason to believe” that Mother would receive treatment for her substance abuse and become a “safe and stable caregiver” for Child within the ensuing six months. Id. at 91. Serrano testified further that Child was dealing with “abandonment fears” and that the continuation of Mother's relationship with Child is “causing harm” to Child. Id. at 88.

[17] The CASA, Leila Nyberg, testified that termination of Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interests. Nyberg explained that,

[a]t this point, ․ even if [Mother] goes to inpatient now, it's just, what makes this time different? There are continually obstacles that come up; she's had many chances where help was put in place and a plan was made for different levels of treatment, PHP, and ․ inpatient, and ․ IOP were discussed multiple times, and there were some, you know, false starts and difficulties. And I just don't know what ․ would stop other, you know, barriers from popping up, what would allow her to follow through this time?

Id. at 136.

[18] As our Supreme Court has explained, “[s]imply stated, children cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification—and courts need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed such that the child's physical, mental and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 648 (Ind. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). The evidence shows that, despite plenty of offered services and five prior opportunities for inpatient treatment, Mother has only found excuses to avoid sobriety. At this point, more delay causes more harm to Child, and given the evidence that Mother is unlikely to reach sobriety anytime soon, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her last-minute motion to continue the final hearing.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   That statute provides in relevant part that a final hearing on a petition for the termination of parental rights shall be commenced not more than ninety days after a petition is filed and shall be completed not more than 180 days after a petition is filed. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-6. Mother's counsel stated that the ninety-day deadline was set to expire on January 28, 2025.

2.   The record is not clear when Mother arrived, but the trial court found that she arrived approximately forty minutes late. According to the transcript, Mother missed only about one-quarter of the hearing. Her arrival is noted on page 38 of the 151-page transcript.

Mathias, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.