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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] C.W. (Mother) has battled addiction and instability for much of her adult life, leading to the State's removal from Mother's care of all five of her children. Mother's youngest child, E.P. (Child), was removed when he was two months old based on reports of substance abuse and domestic violence. Over the next four years, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) offered Mother extensive services with the goal of reuniting her with Child. Mother completed several inpatient treatment programs but repeatedly relapsed, moved among shelters and temporary homes, and ultimately fled the state while she had pending criminal charges.

[2] After a hearing, the juvenile court granted DCS's petition to terminate Mother's parental rights as to Child.¹ By that time, Child was four years old and had spent nearly his entire life in foster care. Mother appeals the juvenile court's judgment, contending the court erred in concluding that DCS had proven the statutory grounds for termination. Finding the court's judgment supported by clear and convincing evidence and not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

Facts

[3] Child was born in October 2020. Just months earlier, Mother's four older children were removed from her care, and she admitted that they were children in need of services (CHINS) due to domestic violence, Mother's drug use, and her inability to provide them with a safe and stable home environment. In December 2020, when Child was two months old and Child's siblings were on a trial home visit with Mother, a DCS family case manager (FCM) visited Mother's home and found her under the influence. Mother admitted she had been using drugs—marijuana and Xanax—for the last three days and that she needed inpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment. All five children were removed from Mother's home.

[4] DCS placed Child in licensed foster care, where he has remained continuously throughout this proceeding. DCS then petitioned to find Child to be a CHINS. At the initial hearing, Parents generally admitted Child was a CHINS. The CHINS court ordered Mother to engage in substance abuse treatment, submit to biweekly random drug screens, participate in mental health and domestic violence services, engage in homebased case management, and attend supervised visitation.

[5] Over the next four years, DCS repeatedly provided Mother with these court-ordered services. Mother entered and completed several inpatient programs but relapsed afterward. In July 2021, Mother was arrested and charged with identity deception, a level 6 felony. After pleading guilty, she was sentenced to one year imprisonment, suspended to probation. The State petitioned to revoke her probation in November 2022. While that matter was pending, Mother was arrested for possession of methamphetamine in February 2023. She moved to Illinois and failed to appear for hearings in her pending criminal matters in Indiana, leading to the issuance of warrants for her arrest.

[6] Although Mother was also required to submit to biweekly drug screens, she only submitted to about half of the tests. Beginning at some point in 2023, Mother continuously tested negative for drugs. But at the time, she generally was submitting to only one screen per week—not the two ordered by the juvenile court. According to the FCM, a parent's submission to two screens per week is important to ensure that a parent cannot escape detection by using drugs shortly after a negative screen and having the drug dissipate to non-detectable levels before the next screen.

[7] Mother successfully completed a victim-based domestic violence program, but her unstable living arrangements continued. She alternated between shelters, friends’ homes, and temporary rentals. She also lacked stable employment.

[8] Mother exercised supervised visitation throughout the CHINS case but never progressed to unsupervised visits. The supervised visits went well but were often canceled because of Mother's relapse, hospitalization, or incarceration. By 2024, Mother's visits had become sporadic, and she had not seen Child for several months before the termination hearing. She was arrested on her outstanding warrants during one visit, and Child's behavior deteriorated thereafter. In March 2023, Mother pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine charge in 2023 and agreed to participate in drug court under a plea agreement that called for dismissal of the probation violation. She faced up to 21/212 years imprisonment under the plea agreement.

[9] In November 2024, DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights. At the termination hearing, DCS presented evidence that Child—then four years old—had lived with the same foster family since 2023. Although he had special needs—including speech delays, behavioral issues, post-traumatic stress disorder related to trauma, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder—Child was thriving in the care of foster parents. They wished to adopt him, and Child was bonded to them. Mother remained in a work-release program that did not permit her to care for Child, and she lacked verified housing or stable employment. Emphasizing Child's need for permanency after four years in foster care, the FCM recommended termination of Mother's parental rights.

[10] After the hearing, the juvenile court entered its order terminating Mother's parental rights to Child. Mother appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] To terminate the parent–child relationship in this case, DCS was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence a variety of circumstances, including:

(1) the existence of one (1) or more of the circumstances described in subsection [Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)];

(2) that there is a satisfactory plan for care and treatment of the child; and

(3) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c) (2024).²

[12] When DCS filed the termination petition, subsection (d) of the termination statute required proof of one or more of twelve circumstances. Ind. Code § 31-34-2-4(d) (2024). The termination petition alleged the following three:

(2) That:

(A) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office or probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning with the date the child is removed from the home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child; and

(B) despite the department's reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the child's family under IC 31–34–21–5.5, the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in the child being placed in care outside the parent's home.

(3) That there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child's removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied.

(4) That there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health, or life of the child.

Id.

[13] Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's conclusions that she failed to remedy the conditions resulting in removal, termination was in Child's best interests, and DCS had a satisfactory plan for Child's care and treatment. When reviewing a judgment terminating a parent's parental rights, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the juvenile court's findings and then whether those findings support the judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). “A judgment is clearly erroneous when the evidence does not support the findings or the findings do not support the result.” In re A.D.W., 907 N.E.2d 533, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[14] In conducting our review, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. at 538. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment. Id. Applying this standard, we find the evidence sufficient to support the judgment and affirm.

I. Remedying Conditions

[15] When determining whether the conditions resulting in a child's removal will not be remedied, the juvenile court must evaluate the parent's fitness to care for the child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration any changed conditions. In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The court also must consider the parent's habitual patterns of conduct to assess the likelihood of future neglect or deprivation. Id. The court may properly weigh a parent's prior history of neglect, failure to respond to offered services, and unchanged substance abuse problems in concluding that the parent's conditions are unlikely to improve. Id. at 670-71.

[16] Mother argues that she had made significant progress by entering multiple inpatient treatment programs, testing negative for drugs since 2023, and engaging in some services. Yet the record supports the juvenile court's conclusion that, despite some participation by Mother, Mother did not achieve the stability necessary to reunite with Child.

[17] Mother was required to submit to random drug screens twice weekly but failed or refused to test about half the time. Although none of the screens have been positive since 2023, the FCM testified that this does not necessarily indicate sobriety. Biweekly screens are needed to ensure that parents are not using drugs shortly after one screen but long enough before the next screen for the drug to dissipate to non-detectable levels, according to the FCM.

[18] Mother also failed to obtain or maintain stable housing or employment. She reported living in shelters, with friends, and occasionally with a boyfriend. At the time of the termination hearing, she remained in a work-release program that did not allow children. Mother had not completed her mental health treatment, had not gained stable employment, and lacked stable housing appropriate for Child. Although Mother successfully completed victim-focused domestic violence services, she did not complete her substance abuse treatment or maintain follow-up care.

[19] During her four years of intensive services, Mother repeatedly relapsed and screened for drugs less frequently than ordered, never reached stability, and, in the FCM's view, progressed inadequately toward reunification. During that period, Mother's other children achieved permanency through placements with other people. Based on all this evidence, the juvenile court properly concluded that there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to Child's removal will not be remedied. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)(4) (2024).

II. Best Interests of the Child

[20] In evaluating whether termination is in a child's best interests, the juvenile court considers the totality of the evidence and must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the child. In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship.” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[21] The evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that termination serves Child's best interests. As previously noted, Mother's substance abuse continued until at least 2023. Afterward, her consistently negative drug screens were subject to question due to her failure to screen as frequently as ordered. Mother's general instability in housing and employment persisted throughout the four-year CHINS case, during which she failed to complete ordered services. Despite repeated inpatient programs and services, she lacked verifiable housing or stable employment. At the time of the termination hearing, she was in a work-release facility that could not accommodate children.

[22] Meanwhile, Child—then four years old—had spent his entire life in foster care. Despite his many developmental challenges, he was thriving. Child's foster parents, to whom he was bonded, wished to adopt him. The FCM testified that termination and adoption would provide the permanency and stability Child needed after years of uncertainty. The juvenile court did not err in concluding that termination was in Child's best interests. See In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d at 807-11 (terminating parental rights of couple who had history of domestic violence and drug abuse and had failed to progress toward reunification).

III. Satisfactory Plan

[23] Mother also challenges DCS's evidence of a satisfactory plan for Child's care and treatment. A plan is satisfactory if it provides “a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated.” Lang v. Starke Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 861 N.E.2d 366, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)). The plan need not be detailed or guaranteed. Id.; In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d at 1007.

[24] Here, DCS's plan was adoption. Child's foster parents, with whom Child has lived for nearly three years, testified that they are willing and able to adopt him. A permanency plan of adoption is routinely deemed satisfactory. See id. Because DCS's plan provides Child with a safe and permanent home, the juvenile court did not err in concluding that DCS proved a satisfactory plan for Child's care and treatment.

Conclusion

[25] Clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusions that the conditions resulting in Child's removal will not be remedied, that termination is in Child's best interests, and that DCS has a satisfactory plan for his care and treatment. We therefore affirm the judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to Child.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of Child's father, A.P., who did not appear at the termination hearing and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Mother cites the wrong version of the termination of parental rights statute, Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4. The version applicable here became effective March 1, 2024—about eight months before DCS filed the petition to terminate Mother's parental rights. P.L.70-2024, SEC.4. DCS relied on the correct version of the statute in the termination petition. The termination statute was amended again in 2025 after the juvenile court entered judgment. P.L.179-2025, SEC.25 (eff. July 1, 2025).

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.