M.G., Appellant-Respondent v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] M.G. (Mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her four children – Mt.G. born in April 2016, Aa.G. born in December 2017, Ao.G. born in June 2020, and Ms.G. born in April 2023 (collectively, the Children).¹ We find the following issue dispositive: Was the termination of Mother's parental rights clearly erroneous?

[2] We reverse and remand.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Mother met Father (collectively, Parents) in 2009 when she was eighteen,² and they married soon thereafter. Before the Children were born, Father suffered an aneurysm in 2014 that caused significant cognitive impairment, including memory issues, slow processing, and slurred speech. He is on social security disability as a result. Over time, his condition deteriorated and, in July 2023, a neuropsychological evaluation revealed that he suffers from major neurocognitive disorder, mood disorder NOS (mild anxiety, dysthymia, and irritability), and strong antisocial and paranoid personality features. He presented with a dementia-type profile and requires supervision for daily activities. His condition can also cause him to become aggressive and “lash out and [he] may not even be aware” of his actions. Transcript Vol. 2 at 206.

[4] Through a neuropsychological evaluation in July 2023, Mother was diagnosed with PTSD (caused by significant childhood trauma, including sexual and physical abuse), bipolar disorder type II (relating to her primary PTSD diagnosis and causing reactivity and emotional reactivity), and personality disorder NOS (antisocial, paranoid, and impulsive/impetuous features). The evaluator, Corby Bubp, Ph.D., HSPP (Dr. Bubp), explained that Mother has a “complex mental health history” requiring “a combination of mental health treatment including psychotropic/medication management and routine counseling.” Exhibits Vol. 5 at 69. He recommended psychotherapy “in an empirically validated treatment for [Mother's] difficulties (Cognitive Processing, EMDR, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, etc.)” because “basic humanistic or insight-oriented therapy [would] likely not produce results.” Id. Dr. Bubp noted that “[Mother] has sufficient IQ for decision making but lacks the emotional/impulsivity controls to make consistent rational decisions at times, especially under stress.” Id. He opined that her difficulties are unlikely to improve without proper intervention, but if she is “compliant with treatments she will be at a much better position for parenting and future mental health.” Id.

[5] In March 2023, the family lived in a home in Lafayette, which they owned and had paid off. Father stayed home with Mt.G., Aa.G., and Ao.G. (collectively, the Older Children) while Mother worked, making about $35,000 a year.³ She was pregnant with Ms.G. at the time.

[6] On March 7, 2023, a domestic incident occurred within the home, and someone inside called 911 but did not speak. The dispatcher could only hear yelling in the background. Responding police officers heard adults screaming and children crying inside the home, but no one answered the door. After a young child came to the window crying and pleading for help, the officers entered the home for a welfare check. Parents were very agitated and irate, and Mother had dried blood on her lip. They did not cooperate with police. Officer Lonnie Wilson immediately noticed “an atrocious smell” inside the home; saw garbage, broken glass, dirt, and dog feces on the floor, along with a sledgehammer and a knife near the front door; and noticed that the Older Children were very dirty and unkept. Transcript Vol. 2 at 75. Further, officers had been called to the home many times over the last couple of years, and Father had a conviction for domestic battery against Mother in 2022, for which he was still on probation.

[7] At the scene, Mt.G. told Officer Grant Snyder that “daddy was chasing mommy with a knife” and “punched mom in the stomach because he does not want her to have another baby.” Exhibits Vol. 1 at 113. Mother then intervened and told her not to talk with the officer. Mother admitted that there had been a verbal altercation but denied anything physical. Mt.G. later recanted during a forensic interview.

[8] Family Case Manager (FCM) Lori Tisson with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) came to the home while police were still present to assess the situation. Father had already been arrested and taken to jail for neglect of a dependent, domestic battery, and intimidation with a weapon. FCM Tisson found the home to be below minimum standards. Mother indicated that she works, and Father stays home with the Older Children, and that they had been arguing about Father needing to help clean up the home. Although Mother was also arrested for neglect, DCS did not take the Older Children into custody because Mother had arranged for them to temporarily stay with a friend.

[9] DCS implemented an informal adjustment with Parents, who quickly bonded out of jail. Parents agreed to participate in services to include home-based case management (HBCM) to improve the conditions of the home, therapeutic services for the family, and services for any other identified issues. “While DCS worked through the assessment, Mother was able to bring the home above minimum standards and the children remained in parents’ care.” Id. at 142. On March 28, however, no-contact orders were issued in Parents’ criminal cases, prohibiting them from having contact with the Older Children. Concerned that Mother was violating the order by messaging Mt.G., DCS took custody of the Older Children on March 30, 2023, and placed them in their paternal grandmother's care.

[10] The next day, DCS filed CHINS petitions for the Older Children, alleging domestic violence in the home and deplorable living conditions. At the detention/initial hearing on April 3, 2023, the trial court ordered the continued detention of the Older Children by DCS. Parents denied the allegations in the CHINS petitions.

[11] Mother gave birth to Ms.G. on April 23, and DCS received a neglect report the next day. The report noted concerns regarding Mother's untreated mental health, as well as the open CHINS cases involving the Older Children. FCM Britteny Morehouse-Braswell conducted an assessment and substantiated neglect based on “unresolved domestic violence in the home[.]” Exhibit Vol. 3 at 243. FCM Morehouse-Braswell noted in her report that she “observed the home to meet minimum standards” and that Parents “had everything that they need to care for [the infant].” Id. at 242. On April 26, DCS filed a CHINS petition for Ms.G., and at a hearing that same day, the trial court ordered DCS to remove and place the infant in foster care.

[12] Thereafter, on May 22, 2023, the trial court held a contested CHINS hearing.⁴ The trial court found that the Children were CHINS. In its order, the court noted that Parents had begun to demonstrate a willingness to participate in services. The court ordered the Children's continued removal from Parents, explaining:

When the children were originally removed, the safety of the children precluded the immediate use of family services to prevent the removal because the father was living in the home, posing a threat to the mother due to domestic violence and Mother had no plan to protect herself or her children. Moreover, there are continued concerns about the conditions in the home ․ Mother was uncooperative with allowing entrance to the home.

Unless and until the home conditions are acceptable and there is a plan for keeping the children safe from the home environment as well as exposure to domestic violence, return to or remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the children ․

Exhibit Vol. 1 at 119.

[13] On June 14, 2023, following a dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered Mother and Father to participate in reunification services. The court ordered Mother to, among other things, complete a diagnostic evaluation and a parenting assessment, participate in HBCM, participate in individual therapy to address anger management and domestic violence, and participate in therapeutic supervised visitation.

[14] At the first CHINS review hearing at the end of September 2023, the trial court found that Mother was participating in services and substantially complying with the dispositional order. Parents regularly attended supervised visits with the Children in Parents’ home and engaged in HBCM. The provider of HBCM services at the time, Aireya Taylor, worked with Parents on conflict resolution and parenting education and reported that Parents “showcased an exemplary level of commitment and engagement” in weekly sessions. Exhibits Vol. 3 at 245. With the help of Taylor, Mother also took a “proactive approach” to improving the safety and cleanliness of Parents’ home. Exhibits Vol. 4 at 9. In September, Taylor and visitation facilitator, Starr Rose, recommended “increased parenting time and less restrictive visits.” Id. at 6.

[15] Taylor, however, noted concerns regarding Mother's behavior during a child and family team meeting (CFTM) in September. Specifically, Mother's “emotional struggles emerged as a significant issue during the CFTM.” Id. at 7. Tensions escalated as the CFTM progressed and Mother struggled to maintain her composure, becoming fragile, anxious, and frustrated. Ultimately, the meeting failed to achieve the goal of creating a 30-60-90-day plan.

[16] Mother's individual therapist, Jennifer Williams, continued to work with her on emotional regulation. In September 2023, Williams recommended continued therapy along with “possibly more intense psychiatric treatment.” Id. at 187.

[17] At the end of September, the Older Children were moved to a second foster home due to personal matters within their first foster home. For the Older Children, “the transition was marked with a sense of loss.” Id. at 17.

[18] Taylor continued to provide HBCM services through November 2023, working with Mother on parenting, conflict resolution, and managing her emotions. Mother actively engaged in sessions and showed a “genuine commitment to improving [her] parenting skills and family dynamics.” Id. at 35. Taylor noted Mother's “commendable parenting attributes” and “innate caregiving qualities” during parenting time with Ms.G., and Rose described Mother as “loving and attentive to child.” Id. at 27, 32. Further, while Mother showed a willingness to work on managing her emotions, this was still a struggle. Taylor continued to emphasize the “crucial” need for DCS to provide Mother with additional support in managing her emotions. Id. at 36.

[19] At the permanency hearing on December 11, 2023,⁵ the trial court found that Mother was in partial compliance with the dispositional order. The court recognized that Mother had been successfully discharged from homemaker service, had completed a psychiatric evaluation, and had participated in HBCM, supervised parenting time, and individual therapy. But Mother had not consistently submitted to drug screens or participated in medical management. Among other things, the court ordered Mother to attend Abuse, Accountability, and Awareness (AAA) classes on a weekly basis, directed the parties to “establish a 30-60-90 day plan for permanency with a goal of commencing overnight,” and ordered DCS to utilize their clinical consultant for a review of Mother's evaluations and recommendations for referrals related to medication management.” Exhibits Vol. 1 at 82, 84. The court changed the permanency plan to a concurrent plan of reunification and adoption. It also noted that the Older Children's foster placement had requested their removal.

[20] In December 2023, Victoria Dickerson began providing HBCM to Mother and supervising visits with Ms.G. in Mother's home. Dickerson described Mother as calmer and as loving, attentive, eager, and motivated. By the end of December, Dickerson reported that Mother was making “much progress” including maintaining a “tidy home” and “doing well managing her emotions.” Exhibits Vol. 4 at 100. Mother, without a referral from DCS, participated in an intensive outpatient treatment program through Sycamore Springs in December and January, including medical management. She also began AAA classes in January and completed significant renovations in her home.

[21] At a CFTM on January 3, 2024, the team agreed to visits progressing to semi-supervised. Dickerson accompanied Mother to her criminal trial for neglect on January 21, 2024. Mother remained calm during her testimony and was ultimately found not guilty by the jury. Thereafter, on January 30, Mother had a visit with all four children together. Then in February, Mother began having semi-supervised visits in her home with the Older Children on the weekends and all four children on Saturdays. These visits generally went well, and the Children looked forward to them. Dickerson noted, however, that on one occasion, Ms.G. smelled of marijuana after a visit, though it was not believed that Mother was under the influence, and on another occasion, Dickerson saw dog feces in the hallway, which Mother quickly cleaned up.

[22] At the permanency hearing on March 11, 2024, the trial court found that Mother was in substantial compliance with the dispositional orders, participating in HBCM, individual therapy, visitation, and AAA classes. The court noted that Father had been released from jail on March 4 and was rearrested on March 7 after battering Mother. The trial court directed DCS to provide a referral for medical management for Mother.

[23] Regarding the March 7 battery, Father had been staying in a structure on Parents’ back property but coming into the house to shower and eat. Though still married, Mother and Father were separated, and she had a new boyfriend, Billie. During a visit with the Children at a community center, Mother returned briefly to the house; Father was inside, and he battered her.⁶ As a result, Father was arrested and has since remained incarcerated, pleading guilty in July 2024 to Level 5 felony battery and admitting to violating probation in his neglect case. He received a three-year executed sentence in the DOC for battery followed by one year in community corrections for the probation violation. Father's earliest possible release from the DOC is in June 2026.

[24] After the battery incident, Billie had a heart attack at Mother's house on or about March 19, 2024, and died later that month. Further, the Older Children were transferred from the foster home that they shared and moved into three separate foster homes.

[25] As a result of this tumultuous period, Mother “digressed tremendously” in March and April. Exhibits Vol. 4 at 116. She missed several visits with the Children, her home was messier, and she was less communicative or engaged in services, as she was preoccupied with Billie and his death. On April 7, she showed up at a visit with a black eye from an altercation with Billie's wife after his funeral. Seeing Mother like this caused distress for the Older Children. Due to safety concerns regarding Billie's wife, who lived across the street, as well as the condition of the home, visits were moved out of Mother's home and into the community by mid-April. Visits also went back to being fully supervised and were reduced to once per week.

[26] Dickerson noted, in April, that Mother needed to get back on her medications because her emotions had been erratic at times. Mother was loving during visits with Ms.G., but she needed to focus on Ms.G. and not let her emotions take over. Dickerson continued to have concerns for Mother's mental stability in May and thereafter stopped providing services to Mother.

[27] After documenting four of five months of progress, Williams, Mother's therapist, began noting setbacks in March 2024 due to the recent trauma Mother had experienced. By May, Mother became inconsistent with attending therapy sessions, and Williams expressed concern that Mother had lost motivation. Mother's erratic behavior, lack of cooperation, and anger lead to Williams discharging Mother from therapy in June.

[28] At the permanency hearing on June 4, 2024, the trial court found Mother in partial compliance with the dispositional order. The court noted that she had participated in therapy, HBCM, and visits, but her visits had been inconsistent, and she had not been taking medication as prescribed or meeting with a psychiatrist as recommended (though DCS had never made such a referral). The court ordered DCS to make efforts to locate a psychiatrist who prescribes medication and is willing to provide therapy for Mother. The court changed the permanency plan to adoption and authorized DCS to initiate termination proceedings.

[29] At a visit two days later with the Children, Mother had an apparent breakdown. The Older Children's therapist, Von Jackson, Ph.D. (Dr. Jackson) was supervising the visit that day and described Mother's behavior as verbally aggressive but not physical.⁷ Mother did not take redirection and continued to complain about DCS and the visit process in a hostile and disruptive manner, causing her to be unable to focus on the Children. Dr. Jackson explained:

I witnessed, uh, a young lady that was frustrated with the process, that was extremely angry about the process. Um, she had a good run, and then all the sudden there was a setback. And so what I saw that day, um, was a mother that was emotionally traumatized.

Transcript Vol. 3 at 138-39. Dr. Jackson called Brenda Gochenour, the court appointed special advocate (CASA), for assistance. Although law enforcement was also called, the situation was successfully diffused by DCS staff.

[30] As a result of this incident, DCS filed a motion to suspend parenting time, asking the court for authority to modify Mother's parenting time from in-person therapeutic visits to virtual therapeutic visits. While awaiting a hearing on this motion, DCS filed the instant petition to terminate parental rights on July 12, 2024.

[31] On July 15, the trial court granted DCS's motion regarding parenting time. The court found that Mother's behavior at the June visit had a negative impact on the Children, resulting in post-visit bad behaviors from at least the two oldest. The court also noted Mother's recent discharge from individual therapy and then concluded:

Remote and therapeutically supervised visits could be beneficial for the children as well as for Mother. The children would be able to quickly leave a visit if they felt threatened or if Mother was not engaged with them and Mother could get immediate coaching and feedback from a therapeutic supervisor if and when she began to lose control or to behave inappropriately.

For all of these reasons, the Court now modifies the current visitation plan from in-person therapeutically supervised visits to remote, albeit therapeutically supervised visits for Mother at the agency, but with the children appearing remotely.

Exhibits Vol. 5 at 108.

[32] By the time of the CHINS review hearing on October 2, 2024, DCS had yet to provide parenting time to Mother pursuant to the July order. Thus, the court ordered DCS to “make arrangements for providers and Mother to connect to schedule virtual therapeutic supervised visits within ten (10) days.” Exhibits Vol. 1 at 36. Due to continued delay on the part of DCS, however, Mother was not provided with parenting time until November 26 for Ms.G. and December 18 for the Older Children. By this time, the termination factfinding hearing had already begun.

[33] The parties presented evidence in the termination matter on September 25, 2024, December 12, 2024, and February 28, 2025. The service providers DCS called as witnesses were generally involved in the case before the termination petition was filed and not thereafter. The Older Children's current respective foster mothers ⁸ also testified at the hearing. The foster mothers for Mt.G. and Aa.G. detailed behavioral issues that each came with into their respective homes in March 2024. While the girls’ behaviors improved over time, the foster mothers noted increased behavioral issues after visits with Mother and siblings, including crying and defiance.

[34] FCM Roxanne Holt testified that when she came on the case in February 2024, Mother was doing well, and they were “working toward really long like all day visits and overnights[.]” Transcript Vol. 2 at 213. But Mother's progress declined in March after Billie's heart attack and death. Regarding the lack of parenting time provided to Mother from July through November/December 2024, FCM Holt acknowledged that this negatively impacted Mother's ability to reunify with the Children. FCM Holt testified that she initially had difficulty locating a therapist to supervise the virtual visits and finally found a provider, Carolyn Kamp, in August or September.

[35] FCM Holt testified that Mother's mental health had been a concern throughout the case and that it remained DCS's main concern currently. She explained that Mother refused to take accountability at CFTMs or be transparent with the team and that Mother did not seem to understand that some of her behavior at visits was “very traumatizing to the children.” Id. at 227. FCM Holt opined that termination of parental rights was in the Children's best interests due to past traumas experienced particularly by Mt.G. and Aa.G. in Mother's home, and Mother's continued inability to regulate her own emotions.

[36] FCM Holt acknowledged, however, that Mother was currently complying with AAA classes, having completed thirty-six out of forty, and individual therapy. Further, in October, Mother provided FCM Holt with documentation that she was treating with Riggs Health, and Mother signed a medical release so that DCS could verify Mother's compliance with medication management. FCM Holt also acknowledged that DCS had never provided Mother with a referral for psychiatric treatment despite her identified problem with emotional regulation.

[37] CASA Gochenour also believed that termination of parental rights was in the Children's best interests. She testified that this opinion was based on the domestic violence the Older Children had been exposed to before removal, the previous unlivable conditions of the home, and Mother's mental health “not always [being] stable,” causing her to make poor choices during periods of instability. Transcript Vol. 3 at 163. Regarding Mother's mental health, CASA Gochenour noted that during CFTMs in and after March 2024, Mother often spoke very aggressively and would scream and yell and want to leave during tough conversations.

[38] Aside from the one incident in June 2024, CASA Gochenour did not recall witnessing Mother speaking aggressively at visits with the Children. CASA Gochenour also testified that Mt.G. and Aa.G. are “more tearful” and anxious when she sees them the day after a visit with Mother. Id. at 171. On cross examination, CASA Gochenour testified that she had not observed Mother interact with the Children since June 2024 and had not seen Mother's home since December 2023.

[39] On the third day of the factfinding hearing, February 28, 2025, Mother testified on her own behalf and called several witnesses, including current and past service providers that DCS chose not to call. First among these witnesses was Laura Houze, Mother's current therapist whom she had been seeing weekly since August 2024 pursuant to a DCS referral. Houze provided Mother with cognitive behavioral therapy to address past trauma and Mother's resulting emotional dysregulation.⁹ When Mother first began therapy with Houze, she was angry with DCS and CASA and would jump up and scream and yell when the topic of the Children came up. Over twenty-three therapy sessions, Houze saw a “big change” in Mother's ability to use coping skills to calm herself. Id. at 23. Houze testified that she believed Mother had a level of accountability now, that Mother had been “doing great,” and that she currently had “no concerns about [Mother's] ability to protect her children.” Id. at 31. Additionally, Houze testified that she had been in Mother's former home at the beginning of therapy and as recently as last week at her new home. Houze described the current conditions of Mother's three-bedroom home as “adequate” and “appropriate enough” for the Children and indicated that Mother had been painting and fixing up the home. Id. at 33, 36.

[40] Kamp, the current provider for therapeutic virtual visits, also testified on Mother's behalf. She explained that the referral from FCM Holt came on September 17, 2024, and Kamp's paperwork was approved by DCS on September 30, but FCM Holt did not reach back out to Kamp until November 13. Kamp testified that she had since supervised fourteen virtual visits between Mother and Ms.G. and nine between Mother and the Older Children (with Aa.G. and/or Mt.G. missing some visits due to facilitator issues on their end). Kamp opined that Mother was bonded, loving, soothing, and appropriate with the Children, who all also showed affection back to Mother. Kamp recommended that visits transition to in-person therapeutic visits and then stepped down to supervised visits.

[41] Mother next called Dr. Jackson, the Older Children's therapist from about the start of the CHINS case to June 2024, when DCS did not renew the referral. As set forth above, Dr. Jackson also supervised therapeutic visits early in the summer of 2023 and found Mother to be cooperative with Dr. Jackson and strongly bonded with the Children.¹⁰ Dr. Jackson began supervising visits again in the spring of 2024, leading to the June 6, 2024 visit that resulted in visits being switched to virtual.

[42] In rebuttal, DCS called as a witness Dr. Bubp, who performed Mother's July 2023 neuropsychological evaluation, and placed the evaluation into evidence. The relevant details of this evidence are set forth above. In sum, Dr. Bubp recommended early in the CHINS case that Mother's complex mental health history be treated with psychiatric medical management and routine psychotherapy or counseling focused on cognitive therapy.

[43] At the conclusion of the February 2025 hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. Then on April 7, 2025, the trial court issued an order terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights with respect to the Children. In the order, the court found that Mother's progress fluctuated throughout the case, referencing the various CHINS hearings in which Mother vacillated from substantial to partial compliance. The court also found that Mother had “positive progress early in the case ․ as she completed programs and progressed to unsupervised visits[.]” Appendix at 54-55. Within this finding, the trial court “highlighted” several positive reports from providers during a seven-month period between August 2023 and February 2024. Id. at 55.

[44] The trial court then found that “Mother's progress declined in the Spring of 2024[.]” Id. The court focused on Mother's “tremendous[ ]” decline in March 2024 and continued setbacks through June 2024, recognizing that the “backslide” occurred in relation to Father's release from jail, his subsequent battery of Mother, and Billie's heart attack and death, all occurring in March 2024. Id. at 55, 56. Mother's behavior became erratic, and she was increasingly angry. And the court noted that providers had expressed concern throughout the CHINS case with Mother's mental health and stability, particularly her being emotional during visits and erratic, angry, and hostile during CFTMs.

[45] The trial court found that the Children “often struggle before and after virtual parenting time with Mother, with behaviors including crying, being upset, and being defiant.” Id. at 58. But the court did not find that Mother was the cause of these behaviors, noting that they “could be caused by a number of factors (or a combination thereof), including past trauma, uncertainty about the future, confusion, and a child simply missing a parent.”¹¹ Id.

[46] Finally, as relevant here, the trial court made a finding that FCM Holt and CASA Gochenour both opined that termination of parental rights and adoption was in the Children's best interests. The court noted CASA Gochenour's concerns regarding Mother's emotional instability, the inconsistent conditions of the home, and the Older Children's past exposure to domestic violence in the home, which had a lasting impact.

[47] In terminating parental rights, the trial court concluded, among other things, that: (1) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the Children's removal will not be remedied; (2) there is a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children; and (3) termination of parental rights is in the Children's best interests.

[48] Mother appeals the termination order. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[49] In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a 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. Where a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions, as in this case, our review 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 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

[50] 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. The following two circumstances listed in Subsection (d) were alleged by DCS and found proven by the trial court in this case:

(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.

Section (d) is written in the disjunctive, and thus if we affirm on one of the circumstances alleged by DCS and found by the trial court, we need not address the other. See In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[51] As our Supreme Court has recognized, “a parent's interest in the upbringing of his or her child is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the courts.” In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 (Ind. 2016) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). As such, the certainty of a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is paramount. Id.

When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it. If the State prevails, it will have worked a unique kind of deprivation. A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.

Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982)); see also In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d 607, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (observing that termination of parental rights is an extreme measure that should be utilized only as a last resort when all other reasonable efforts have failed), trans. denied. While our analysis on review is centered on the trial court's findings and conclusions, without reweighing the evidence, “we must be mindful that a standard of proof loses much of its value if a reviewing court does not apply sufficient scrutiny to enforce it.” V.A., 51 N.E.3d at 1144-45 (internal quotations omitted).

[52] For a parent's due process rights to be protected in the context of termination proceedings, DCS generally must have made reasonable efforts in the CHINS case to reunify the family. See T.W., 135 N.E.3d at 615; see also Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5(b) (providing that aside from exceptions not applicable in this case, DCS “shall make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify” the family). What constitutes “reasonable efforts” varies by case, and this requirement “does not necessarily always mean that services must be provided to the parents.” T.W., 135 N.E.3d at 615. Further, while the failure to provide services to a parent is not a proper basis to directly attack a termination order, as the provision of reasonable reunification efforts is not an element of the termination statute, see In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 148 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), it must be recognized that CHINS and termination proceedings are “deeply and obviously intertwined to the extent that an error in the former may flow into and infect the latter[.]” In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158, 1165 (Ind. 2014); see also Matter of D.H., 119 N.E.3d 578, 580-81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (reversing termination where DCS's mishandled CHINS case to such an extent that parent was denied due process), adhered to as modified on reh'g, 122 N.E.3d 832, 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[53] Mother contends that she was denied due process when DCS failed to provide her with parenting time in July, August, September, October, and most of November 2024, in direct contravention of the order in the CHINS case regarding therapeutic, remote, supervised visits between Mother and the Children. Mother complains that this negatively impacted her ability to reunify with the Children, which FCM Holt conceded below.

[54] DCS responds that this was Mother's fault, not DCS's, because she wanted to switch therapeutic visit providers, and finding a new provider was difficult for FCM Holt. We cannot agree that the nearly five-month, complete lapse in parenting time was Mother's fault. The undisputed evidence establishes that FCM Holt located Kamp in August or September and emailed Kamp on September 17, with Kamp filling out paperwork and becoming an approved provider by the end of September. At the CHINS review hearing on October 2, the court directed DCS to get visits started for Mother within ten days, but FCM Holt, without explanation, did not contact Kamp until November 13. This was unacceptable, especially where Mother had established a long history of regularly exercising parenting time with the Children (except for a few missed visits).

[55] It is also concerning that DCS never provided Mother with a referral to a psychiatrist to address her difficulties with emotion regulation. Dr. Bubp recommended psychiatric treatment for Mother in his July 2023 neuropsychological evaluation; after providing therapy to Mother for four months, Williams recommended in her September 2023 monthly progress report to DCS that Mother may require more intense psychiatric treatment; and the trial court ordered DCS, on June 4, 2024, to make efforts to locate a psychiatrist to provide therapy for Mother, along with medication management.

[56] Mother argues that DCS “actively undermined reunification” and gave up on her because she was difficult to deal with. Appellant's Brief at 30. We are sympathetic to Mother's belief in this regard, but it is not clear that DCS's actions late in the CHINS case, after the provision of substantial services, resulted in the denial of due process. Regardless, for the reasons discussed below and keeping the due process concerns in mind, we conclude that the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous.

[57] We first consider the trial court's determination that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or continued placement outside of Mother's 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.

In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 18-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied) (brackets omitted), trans. denied.

[58] The trial court's findings reveal that it failed to consider Mother's fitness to care for the Children at the time of the termination hearing. In its findings, the court made no mention of Mother's participation in or progress with services after the termination petition was filed, which was more than seven months before the last day of the hearing. The findings do not even mention Houze or Kamp.

[59] At the time of the factfinding hearing, Mother had been actively and consistently participating in individual therapy with a new therapist, Houze, who was successfully treating Mother using cognitive behavioral therapy – a type of therapy recommended by Dr. Bubp. Houze began treating Mother through a DCS referral in August 2024, and Houze testified in February 2025 regarding the great strides Mother had made with the ability to self-regulate. Houze had no concerns at the time regarding Mother's ability to protect the Children, and as she had been inside Mother's home multiple times, which Houze described as adequate and appropriate.

[60] Further, the current provider of therapeutic virtual visits, Kamp, testified that she had no concerns regarding Mother's behavior or ability to regulate her emotions during visits. Kamp testified that Mother and the Children were bonded and that Mother was loving, soothing, and appropriate with the Children. Kamp recommended that visits transition to in-person therapeutic and then step down to supervised visits.

[61] DCS's primary concern at the time of the termination hearing was Mother's mental health, particularly her difficulties with emotional regulation. Indeed, that is the only alleged unchanged condition that DCS discusses on appeal.¹² See Appellee's Brief at 23 (arguing that the trial court's findings support its judgment because “Mother, with her severe mental health issues, is unable to parent [the] Children”). Like the trial court, DCS relies on the three-month period of instability Mother experienced in the middle of the CHINS case around the time of Billie's death.¹³ This culminated in the supervised visit on June 6, 2024, in which Mother experienced what Dr. Jackson described as a breakdown. Mother was extremely angry about the CHINS process and became verbally aggressive in front of the Children. This inappropriate behavior negatively impacted the Children and resulted in visits being modified from in-person to virtual.

[62] Though she had been emotional, there was no evidence presented that she had been aggressive during any other visits with the Children. Rather, evidence of her verbal aggression was generally confined to interactions during CFTMs and with members of the team related to her anger about the CHINS process and the Children being removed from her care. Despite her strong dissatisfaction, Mother, for most of the CHINS case, worked diligently with service providers toward reunification. The trial court's findings highlight Mother's positive progress from August 2023 to February 2024, followed by a significant decline in March 2024 that lasted a few months. Mother then turned it around again, making significant progress with her new therapist and her eventual, but greatly delayed, visits with the Children.¹⁴

[63] The trial court determined that Mother “did not comply with and/or complete all services” and thus “demonstrated an unwillingness to change [her] behavior.” Appendix at 60. We agree with Mother that flawless participation by a parent is not required in order to avoid termination of parental rights. The trial court's own findings, as well as the record, do not establish a pattern of unwillingness by Mother to deal with her parenting problems or to cooperate with service providers. Mother had already made many changes to the conditions that had resulted in the Children's removal, including improving the conditions of her home, separating from and then filing for divorce from Father, participating in AAA classes, and working with her therapist, in conjunction with medication management, to address her mental health challenges. Mother also worked diligently throughout the CHINS case to maintain a bond with the Children.

[64] For all the above reasons, we hold that DCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the reasons for the Children's placement outside Mother's home are not likely to be remedied. The trial court's conclusion in this regard is not supported by its findings of fact and is clearly erroneous.

[65] The trial court also determined that there is a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the Children. The court explained its threat conclusion as follows:

At times, the Mother participated in services and made progress, advancing to semi-supervised parenting time. However, since March 2024, the Mother's progress has been minimal, with most of the service providers noting that the Mother had regressed. The Mother's lingering mental health concerns, including her inability to de-escalate her anger and to handle stressful situations, continue[ ] to hinder her progress and pose[ ] a great concern for whether she can adequately and safely parent four young children on her own. As such, continuing the parent-child relationship with a parent who has exerted minimal and/or inconsistent effort to act as a parent poses a threat to the child's well-being.

Appendix at 61-62.

[66] Like the trial court's previous conclusion regarding changed circumstances, it focused on the evidence of Mother's decline in the spring of 2024 and entirely ignored evidence of Mother's return to improved mental health through, among other things, the appropriate therapeutic treatment with Houze. That is, the court made no findings regarding Mother's therapy with Houze or therapeutic visits supervised by Kamp. Further, it is not apparent from the trial court's findings that Mother's emotional dysregulation, which was directed toward DCS, not the Children, posed a threat to the Children's well-being such that her parental rights should be terminated. DCS asserts that the Children “had already had issues due to Mother's erratic behavior.” Appellee's Brief at 28. But the trial court did not make such a finding,¹⁵ and it stopped short of blaming Mother for Mt.G.’s and Aa.G.’s behavioral struggles before and/or after some of the virtual visits with Mother, including crying and defiance.

[67] On appeal, DCS argues that the same evidence supporting the court's probability of non-remedy conclusion also supports the probability of threat to well-being conclusion. We, however, hold that the evidence supports neither by clear and convincing evidence and that the trial court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights must be set aside as clearly erroneous.

[68] Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions to reopen the CHINS cases, reexamine the requirements for Mother's reunification with the Children, and enter a new dispositional order.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A.G. (Father) does not appeal the involuntary termination of his parental rights to the Children.

2.   Father is nine years older than Mother and has two adult children.

3.   Mother has a history of consistent employment.

4.   Just a few days earlier, the Older Children were moved from placement with paternal grandmother to a foster home separate from Ms.G.’s placement.

5.   Days before this hearing, Father had been incarcerated and was serving ninety days in jail after pleading guilty to Level 6 felony neglect relating to the March 2023 incident.

6.   As reflected in the service notes of Father's therapist, Father reported that he “went off” because Mother “[h]ad a new boyfriend[.]” Exhibits Vol. 5 at 36.

7.   Dr. Jackson had supervised many visits in her nearly year and a half working with the Older Children and had never seen Mother behave like this during a visit. She noted that Mother had a strong bond with the Children and had been cooperative and attentive during past visits. However, Dr. Jackson acknowledged that she had witnessed Mother's anger during CFTMs.

8.   Since March 2024, all four children remained in separate foster homes. Three of the four foster families were willing to adopt the child in their care, and Aa.G.’s foster mother testified that her adult daughter was willing to adopt Aa.G.

9.   She diagnosed Mother with PTSD and anxiety, as well as depression associated with her adjustment to dealing with the removal of the Children.

10.   Mother also called Starr Rose as a witness, who had supervised daily in-home visits with Ms.G. (and some visits with the Older Children) through October 2023. Rose testified that Mother was appropriate, on time, prepared, and bonded and that the Children were “always happy” during the visits she supervised. Further, Rose testified that she did not have any safety concerns during that period. Id. at 146.

11.   We note that at the time of the virtual visits, the Children had, for the first time in their lives, gone months without seeing Mother. The Children were also living apart from each other.

12.   The trial court found that Mother had improved the conditions of her home and that she had filed for divorce from Father, who remained incarcerated with an earliest possible release date of June 2026. We also note that Mother had been separated from Father since at least December 2023.

13.   DCS also asks us to consider Mother's behavior during her AAA classes. The trial court, however, made no findings regarding these classes, aside from noting that she had completed thirty-six out of forty classes. We also note that DCS misrepresents the testimony of Harry Heyer, the director of AAA. While Heyer testified that Mother had at times been loud and disruptive in class, he did not testify that Mother showed up to class “smell[ing] of alcohol” or that she “arrived late, disheveled and upset, and left early.” Appellee's Brief at 25 (citing Transcript Vol. 2 at 112). Further, Heyer made clear that before, during, or after class, Mother “never acted to the extreme level that she did in the CFTMs.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 112.

14.   We find it telling that DCS did not call Kamp or Houze as witnesses despite them being Mother's most recently referred service providers. Further, we find dubious DCS's assertion that “[a]lthough Mother had therapy, it did not help.” Appellee's Brief at 25. With therapy, Mother made progress both before and after her period of decline in the spring of 2024.

15.   The trial court made no findings regarding the actual effects of Mother's erratic behavior on any of the Children. In fact, the findings do not focus on the conditions or circumstances of the Children or even mention the fact that all four of them are living in separate foster homes.

Altice, Chief Judge.

May, J. and Foley, J., concur.