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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.C., Jr., and G.C. (Minor Children)

Case Summary

[1] A.C., Sr. (“Father”), appeals an order involuntarily terminating his parental rights over A.C., Jr., born June 14, 2019, and G.C., born April 6, 2024, (collectively, “Children”).¹ The sole, restated issue on appeal is whether the trial court clearly erred when it terminated Father's parent-child relationships with Children.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 14, 2023, DCS received a report alleging A.G., Jr., and his stepbrother, Z.L.,² both of whom lived with Mother and Father (collectively, “Parents”), were exposed to domestic violence and unsafe conditions in the home and to caregiver impairment. Police officers who had responded to a call regarding a physical altercation in the home reported that the home was “dirty” and marijuana was “in plain view ․ and accessible to the children.” Appealed Order at 3. DCS attempted to contact Parents on multiple occasions to assess the allegations, but Parents did not respond to those attempts. On April 27, parents submitted to drug screens. Father tested positive for THC and Mother tested positive for fentanyl.

[4] On May 4, the Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) court issued an emergency custody order authorizing removal of A.C., Jr., and Z.L. from the home “due to continued substance use by [Parents] and an additional incident of domestic violence that occurred on April 28, 2023.” Id. Mother was the victim of the domestic violence incident, and A.C., Jr., and Z.L. were present during the incident. Father was subsequently arrested for Domestic Battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years of age, as a Level 6 felony, and Domestic Battery with a prior unrelated conviction, as a Level 6 felony. The criminal court issued a no-contact order prohibiting Father from contact with Mother, A.C., Jr., and Z.L., pending further order of the court.

[5] A.C., Jr., and Z.L. were removed from Parents on May 5, 2023, and placed in foster care. On May 8, DCS filed petitions alleging each child was a CHINS. Following a fact-finding hearing on June 29, the court adjudicated A.C., Jr., and Z.L. CHINS “due to exposure to domestic violence, [Parents’] substance abuse, lack of stable housing, and Father's inability to provide care due to incarceration and a No Contact Order.” Id. at 4. On July 21, 2023, A.G., Jr., and Z.L. were given hair follicle drug screens, which returned positive for both children for fentanyl, cocaine, and cocaine metabolite. Parents were ordered to participate in services, including random drug screens, home-based services, domestic violence assessments, substance use disorder assessments, and supervised visitation with A.C., Jr. In addition, Parents were ordered to follow the recommendations of the assessments.

[6] Father failed to engage in services and to keep in contact with DCS and service providers. “Father exhibited [a] pattern of reaching out to [DCS] to say he wanted to complete a service, but then he failed to follow through with actually attending or completing the service.” Id. at 5. For example, Father completed the intake paperwork to obtain domestic violence services but failed to attend any sessions. Father “failed to obtain sobriety, failed to consistently submit to random drug screens, and failed to attend drug treatment.” Id. Father missed 241 “call-ins” for random drug screens and forty-nine drug tests. Id. Of the fourteen random drug tests Father took, three returned negative for all illegal substances, nine returned positive for THC, one test was positive for THC and cocaine, and one specimen could not be tested.

[7] G.C. was born to Parents on April 6, 2024. Testing of his umbilical cord blood showed he was positive for THC and methadone, and he required two months of hospitalization to treat his drug withdrawal symptoms. On April 26, the CHINS court issued an emergency custody order authorizing removal of G.C. from Parents’ care “due to Mother's positive drug screen for Fentanyl, Cocaine and THC when she delivered the child, the infant child's need for hospitalization to address his withdrawal symptoms, Mother and Father's lack of participation in services, and because Mother and Father continued to reside together at the Mosely Motel in violation of the No Contact Order.” Id. at 6. DCS filed a CHINS petition for G.C. on April 30 and, on July 15, G.C. was adjudicated a CHINS. Parents were ordered to engage in the same services as those in A.G., Jr.’s, CHINS case “to address their sobriety, domestic violence[,] and stability.” Id.

[8] On July 20, 2024, DCS filed a petition for involuntary termination of Parents’ relationships with A.C., Jr., and on December 9, DCS filed a termination petition regarding G.C. On January 10, 2025, the trial court conducted a combined fact finding hearing on all pending termination petitions. Neither Parent appeared, despite having notice of the hearing. Family Case Manager (“FCM”) Britney Franks and Court-Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) Kelly Hunt testified for DCS.

[9] On May 5, the trial court issued an amended order on the termination hearing in which it found the following pertinent facts, in addition to those stated above:

Mother and Father lack stable housing and income and continue to live together despite the No Contact Order issued in Father's criminal case. Mother and Father reside at the Mosely Motel, which is not a good environment for children. Father frequently told FCM Franks and others that he could not participate in services or attend court hearings due to employment; however, Father never provided DCS, CASA or service providers with any records or information regarding his employment.

Mother and Father are consistent with their failure to participate in the case plan for the children, failure to attend CHINS court hearings, failure to maintain contact with DCS and CASA, failure to comply with terms of probation or pre-trial release, and failure to attend criminal court hearings ․ Father currently has three (3) active warrants for his arrest for failure to appear in three (3) cases in Porter County.

Father's pending criminal matters and warrants are as follows: ․ Possession of Paraphernalia (Class C Misdemeanor)[, with] ․ a bench warrant ․ for Father's failure [to appear] for [a] hearing․

․ Domestic Battery committed in the presence of child less than 16 years of age (Level 6 Felony) and Domestic Battery with Prior, Unrelated Conviction (Level 6 Felony)[, with] a bench warrant ․ for Father's failure [to appear] for [a] hearing ․ ․ Invasion of Privacy (Class A Misdemeanor)[.] On May 5, 2023, law enforcement located Father in the home with Mother, which was in violation of the No Contact Order. The criminal court issued a bench warrant ․ for Father's failure [to appear] for [a] hearing․

Mother and Father inconsistently participated in visitation with the children and visitation remained fully supervised by a service provider. Father is prohibited from visiting with [A.C., Jr.,] due to the No Contact Order issued in the criminal case, and therefore, Father has not visited with [A.C., Jr.,] since May 2023. FCM Franks informed Father that he needed to request a modification of the No Contact Order in the criminal case, but Father has yet to make the request․ Father started supervised visitation with [G.C.] in August 2024. He visited twice in September 2024 and for 3-4 hours a week. There are no safety concerns regarding Father's interactions with [G.C.] during supervised visitation.

Id. at 6-8.

[10] The trial court concluded:

[There is] clear and convincing evidence that the reasons that led to the removal of the children from the home have not been remedied by Mother and Father and that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions will not be remedied. The children were removed due to substance abuse, domestic violence, incarceration, and neglect. During the twenty (20) months of services provided by DCS, Mother and Father failed to address their sobriety, failed to attend domestic violence education, and failed to address their criminal charges․ Father continues to use marijuana and tested positive for cocaine. Mother and Father continue to reside together in a motel and ignore the criminal court's order for no contact. Additionally, Mother and Father have multiple warrants for their arrest. Mother and Father failed to successfully participate in and complete services to reunify with the children. Mother and Father's current ability to provide care for the children has not improve[d] since removal of the children.

[There is] clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable probability that continuing the parent-child relationship would pose a threat to the safety, well-being, physical health or life of the children due to Mother[’s] and Father's continued substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of stable housing, and criminal behavior. An impaired caregiver cannot meet the needs of children or provide a healthy, stable home environment. Mother and Father exposed all of the children to illegal substances, which resulted in the children testing positive for illegal substances. [A.C., Jr., and Z.L.] were exposed in the home environment to Fentanyl and Cocaine. The children tested positive for both substances on a hair follicle drug screen after removal․ There is no evidence of sobriety by the parents and no evidence that continued exposure to illegal substances in the home environment would stop at this time. In addition, Mother and Father failed to address the violence within their relationship. There is no evidence that the children would not be exposed to continued domestic violence in the care of Mother and Father. Mother[’s] and Father's current home environment is a motel known for illegal activity that is not safe for children. Furthermore, Mother and Father have active warrants and would not be able to provide care for the children while incarcerated․

Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the children in that: The children are in need of a safe, stable home environment that is free from substance abuse, domestic violence and neglect. The children need caregivers that can provide adequate supervision and meet the children's individual daily needs. Father and Mother are unable to provide this environment for the children. Mother and Father continue to abuse illegal substances, they failed to address the domestic violence in their relationship, they lack stable housing for the children, and Mother and Father have multiple warrants for their arrest. The environment that Mother and Father provided for the children prior to removal was one of exposure to drugs, domestic violence, and neglect. The children tested positive for Cocaine, Fentanyl, and THC as a result of their continuous exposure to illegal substances while in Mother[’s] 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. Mother and Father are unable to make decisions that are in the best interest of the children.

Id. at 8-10. Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[11] We begin our review by acknowledging that “[t]he traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe Cnty. Div. of Fam. & Child. (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Schultz v. Porter Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re K.S.), 750 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Termination of a parent-child relationship is proper where a child's emotional and physical development is threatened.” Id. Although the right to raise one's own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. Id. at 836-37.

[12] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required to allege and prove, among other things:

the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances:

***

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)(3)-(4) (2024). In addition, DCS must allege and prove:

(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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c)(2)-(3) (2024). DCS's “burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ ” R.Y. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C.§ 31-37-14-2).

[13] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re D.D.), 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court's judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied, cert. denied.

[14] Here, in terminating Father's parental rights, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon. When a trial court's judgment contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and, second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the trial court's decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208. When findings of fact are unchallenged, this Court accepts them as true. L.M. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re S.S.), 120 N.E.3d 605, 608 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). As such, if the unchallenged findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment, we will affirm. Kitchell v. Franklin, 26 N.E.3d 1050, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

Challenge to Findings

[15] Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support some of the trial court's factual findings. First, he challenges the court's findings that he and Mother lacked stable housing and continued to live together in violation of the no-contact order, which posed a risk of “Children being exposed to domestic violence.” Appellant's Br. at 20. However, those findings are supported by FCM Frank's testimony. When asked if she believed that Mother and Father continued to reside together, she stated “Yes.” Tr. at 45. When asked if she knew where Parents resided together, she answered: “The Mosley Hotel” in Gary, where they had been residing together for “some time.” Id. FCM Frank further testified that she “would be concerned about [Children's] safety if they were to reside” at the motel because “[r]eports indicated that ․ it seems not to be the best environment.” Id. at 45-46. The testimony that Father continued to live with Mother in violation of the no-contact order and that their “home” was a motel with an environment that was “not ․ the best” for Children, supports the trial court's findings that Parents continued to live together in unsuitable housing and the risk of domestic violence continued to exist.

[16] Second, Father challenges the finding that he “exposed all of the children to illegal substances,” and he notes that G.C. never lived in his home with him but was exposed to drugs in utero only by Mother. Appealed Order at 9. However, Father does not challenge the finding that law enforcement observed marijuana “in plain view in the home and accessible to the children[,]” A.C., Jr. and Z.L., nor does he challenge the finding that A.C., Jr.’s hair follicles tested positive for drugs. Appealed Order at 3. Therefore, we accept those findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d at 608 n.2. And those findings support the additional finding that Father exposed A.C., Jr. and Z.L. to drugs in the home.

[17] Moreover, while Father correctly notes that there is no evidence that he exposed G.C. to illegal drugs because G.C. never lived in his home, we may reverse a trial court's judgment based on an erroneous finding only if that finding “constitute[s] prejudicial error.” C.W. & B.J. v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re B.J.), 879 N.E.2d 7, 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. An erroneous finding is cause for reversal only if it is the “sole support for any conclusion of law necessary to sustain the judgment of the court.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). An erroneous finding is “merely harmless surplusage” when the unchallenged findings “provide ample support for the trial court's ultimate conclusion.” Id. Here, any error in the challenged finding as to Father's drug use in G.C.’s presence is not prejudicial because the remaining findings support the court's termination of Father's parental rights as to G.C., as noted in detail below.

Conditions that Resulted in Removal/Continued Placement

[18] Father challenges the court's conclusions that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for Child's removal or continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, and that there is a reasonable probability that continuation of the parental relationship poses a threat to Child. Because Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(d) is written in the disjunctive, we need only address the first conclusion.

[19] When we consider the likelihood of remediation of conditions, we engage in a two-step analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). “First, we identify the conditions that led to removal; and second, we determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). In the first step, we consider not only the initial reasons for removal, but also the reasons for continued placement outside the home. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In the second step, 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 re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643.

[20] However, the court must also “evaluate the parent's habitual patterns of conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” Moore v. Jasper Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re M.S., 898 N.E.2d 307, 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting the “trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his physical, mental, and social development are permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship”). In evaluating the parent's habitual patterns of conduct, the court may disregard efforts made shortly before the termination hearing and weigh the history of the parent's prior conduct more heavily. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013). And DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that there is a reasonable probability the parent's behavior will not change. Moore, 894 N.E.2d at 226.

[21] Here, the conditions that led to Children's removals were Father's substance abuse, acts of domestic violence, and unstable housing. The uncontested findings establish that Children remained out of Father's care due to his failure to engage in and complete court-ordered services such as substance abuse and domestic violence assessments and any necessary follow up treatment. Moreover, Father missed the vast majority of random drug screens, taking only fourteen over the twenty-month period of the pending CHINS actions. And only three of the screens he took were negative for illegal substances. While Father alleged that he was employed, he never provided any verification of such alleged employment. In addition, Father continued to live with Mother in a motel, despite a no-contact order and pending criminal charges against him for domestic battery and invasion of privacy due to violation of the no-contact order. At the time of the termination hearing, Father had three pending criminal cases with warrants for his arrest in all three. Finally, Father failed to follow DCS's recommendation that he seek a modification of the no-contact order so that he could visit with A.C., Jr.; therefore, Father had not seen A.C., Jr., since May 2023.

[22] As the trial court noted, there was no evidence of Father's sobriety and “no evidence that continued exposure to illegal substances in the home environment would stop.” Appealed Order at 9. Nor is there any “evidence that the children would not be exposed to continued domestic violence in the care of Mother and Father,” as they continued to live together and Father faced additional domestic violence charges. Id. The evidence most favorable to the judgment supports the trial court's conclusion that Father likely would not remedy the reasons Children had remained out of his care since the beginning of the CHINS cases. Father's contentions to the contrary are simply requests that we reweigh the evidence and/or judge witness credibility, which we may not do. See, e.g., In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265.

Best Interests of the Children

[23] In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “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. “Additionally, a child's need for permanency is an important consideration in determining the best interests of a child, and the testimony of the service providers may support a finding that termination is in the child's best interests.” In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d at 224. Such evidence, “in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests.” In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[24] The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that, throughout the CHINS and Termination of Parental Rights proceedings and even at the time of the termination hearing, Father was unable to provide adequate housing, stability, and supervision for Children. Father had not seen A.C., Jr. in approximately two years and had taken no steps to try to modify the no-contact order. Father failed and/or refused the vast majority of drug screens, had no verification of his alleged employment, and could not provide stable housing as shown by the fact that he continued to live in a motel, “which is not a good environment for children.” Appealed Order at 6. Father also failed to engage in a domestic violence assessment and any necessary follow up treatment, and he had domestic violence criminal charges pending against him at the time of the termination hearing.

[25] Moreover, the FCM and CASA testified that termination of Father's parental rights is in Children's best interests and that Children need permanency, which can be provided by their foster parents, who intended to adopt them. Given that testimony, in addition to evidence that Children need permanency and stability that Father cannot and/or will not provide and that the reasons for Children's removal and continued placement outside Father's home will not likely be remedied, we hold that the totality of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that termination is in Children's best interests. In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158-59.

Conclusion

[26] The challenged findings of fact are either supported by the evidence or harmless surplusage. And the trial court's uncontested findings of fact support its judgment terminating Father's parental rights. The trial court did not clearly err.

[27] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Children's mother, A.L., (“Mother”) does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Z.L. is the biological child of Mother and M.G, who died on October 20, 2023. The termination of parental rights regarding Z.L. is not at issue in this appeal.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.