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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Based on a report that N.D. (Mother) and S.P. (Father) (collectively, Parents) had abandoned their children and subsequent issues with drug use and domestic violence, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) initiated a case alleging that the children were Children in Need of Services (CHINS). After three years of CHINS proceedings during which Parents were unable to remain sober, DCS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights.

[2] After a hearing, the trial court terminated Parents’ rights, concluding that: (1) there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children's removal and continued placement outside the home would not be remedied; (2) there was a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children's well-being, safety, physical health, or life; and (3) termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests. Parents appeal separately. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the court's first and second conclusions, and Father challenges only the third. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Parents have five children together,¹ four of whom are the subjects of the underlying CHINS and termination proceedings: An.D., born July 26, 2009; Ar.D., born November 22, 2012; Al.D., born July 11, 2018; and Ad.D., born July 22, 2019 (collectively, Children).

[4] In the fall of 2021, DCS received a report that Parents had abandoned Children after they traveled to California and had not returned when expected. Parents eventually returned and DCS initiated an Informal Adjustment (IA) to help the family address multiple issues including Ar.D. missing a significant amount of school, Parents’ use of methamphetamine, housing instability, and domestic violence. DCS offered Parents services during the IA, but Parents continued to test positive for methamphetamine, use substances in Children's presence, and refused to engage in drug treatment or complete a substance use assessment.

[5] In December of 2021, DCS filed a verified petition alleging Children were CHINS based on the circumstances described above. At that time, An.D. was twelve years old, Ar.D. was nine, Al.D. was three, and Ad.D. was two, and Children had not been removed from Parents’ care. At the initial hearing, the court ordered DCS to obtain hair drug screens for Children and conduct random drop-ins at their home, and Parents were ordered to participate in random drug screens.

[6] DCS filed an amended CHINS petition on January 4, 2022, which indicated Children had recently been removed “with the assistance of law enforcement.” Mother's Appendix Vol. 3 at 59. That same day, the court held a detention hearing and ordered Mother to immediately vacate the home. The court found Al.D.’s and Ad.D.’s hair drug screens had returned positive for methamphetamine and Parents had another domestic violence incident in front of Children. Al.D. and Ad.D. were placed in foster care, but An.D. and Ar.D. were approved for a trial home visit (THV) with Father.

[7] At the CHINS fact-finding hearing in February, Children were adjudicated CHINS. The court also suspended Parents’ visitation until they tested negative for methamphetamine. Immediately following the fact-finding hearing, the court held an emergency placement hearing for An.D. and Ar.D.—terminating the THV with Father and placing them in foster care. A few weeks later, the court entered its dispositional order requiring Parents to participate in the following services: substance use assessment, home-based case management (HBCM), intensive outpatient treatment (IOT), random drug screens, and domestic violence services.²

[8] Parents completed most of the services provided to them, and some they participated in more than once. Parents completed their first HBCM referral by November 2023. Both parents received new HBCM referrals in May 2024 due to drug relapses and set new goals including achieving financial stability, remaining sober, supporting one another in sobriety, and participating in therapy and addiction support services. They participated in their individual therapies, but they struggled to consistently attend addiction services.

[9] Parents’ greatest challenge was maintaining sobriety, and they struggled to support one another in that goal. Specifically, Mother expressed a desire to leave Father on multiple occasions and reported to a service provider that Father “can be difficult in their marriage” and her relapses often occur when he has brought methamphetamine home. Tr. at 104. That service provider assisted Mother in finding a temporary shelter so she could separate from Father and pursue reunification with Children on her own, but she returned within a few days. Although they maintained some periods of sobriety throughout the CHINS proceedings, particularly in 2023, Parents relapsed many times in 2024. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine twice in April, once in June, twice in July, once in September, and once in December. Father tested positive for methamphetamine twenty times between April 2024 and the end of that year.

[10] Parents completed substance abuse assessments early in the CHINS case. Only Mother received a recommendation to complete IOT, which she completed in August 2023. Because of their relapses, Parents completed updated assessments in the Summer of 2024 and were diagnosed with severe substance use disorders. Mother completed another IOT program in December 2024, and Father completed an inpatient program around the same time after unsuccessfully attempting IOT. Father relapsed one week after he completed the inpatient program, and Mother relapsed within a month of her IOT completion.

[11] Parents’ substance use also resulted in multiple criminal charges. Mother was arrested and charged in early 2023 for possession of a controlled substance. Six months later, while out on bond for the first charge, she was arrested again and charged with two operating while intoxicated offenses.  ³ Father was charged in January 2025 for possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia.

[12] Domestic violence continued to be a concern throughout the case. Parents were referred to the Abuse Awareness and Accountability program for abuse intervention in December 2021. Father completed the program in December 2023, and Mother completed the program in January 2024. They each completed the program only after starting over due to “major violations” for excessive absences and quitting. Transcript at 42. In June 2024, Father felt he needed to participate in the program again and re-enrolled but did not complete it. Even as recently as November 2024, police had been called to the home because of a domestic dispute.

[13] While Parents consistently participated in supervised visitation with Children and were appropriately engaged with them while together, in-person visits were suspended multiple times due to Parents’ continued use of methamphetamine. The three boys, An.D., Al.D., and Ad.D., were allowed THVs with Parents in December 2023 and February 2024, but Father was removed from the home in May 2024 for methamphetamine use and the THV was terminated a few months later due to another relapse by Mother.

[14] The permanency plan for Children changed several times throughout the CHINS proceedings. Initially, the plan for Children was reunification—until April 2023 when the trial court modified it to reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption for all Children. In December 2023, the plan changed back to just reunification. Then in June 2024, the court modified the plan to reunification with a concurrent plan of guardianship for the three boys and reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption for Ar.D. Finally, in November, the plan was changed to adoption only for all four Children.

[15] In August 2024, DCS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights as to Al.D. and Ad.D. and a petition to voluntarily terminate their rights as to Ar.D. An evidentiary hearing was held for those petitions on November 1. On November 21, Mother signed consents for all four Children to be adopted, but on December 6 she filed a revocation of her consent for Al.D. and Ad.D.

[16] On January 7, 2025, DCS then filed verified petitions to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights as to An.D. and Ar.D. The parties agreed to set aside the evidence presented in November and start over on all four involuntary termination petitions so all the evidence could be heard together. The termination hearing held on January 29, 2025 included testimony from Parents, multiple service providers, and Children's Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA).

[17] Father testified that his last drug use was only a few weeks before the hearing, and he agreed that he “[a]bsolutely” is “not a safe and stable caregiver if [he is] using methamphetamines[.]” Tr. at 62. Mother testified that she had also used drugs two or three weeks before the termination hearing and that she relapsed because she was not “able to see [Children.]” Id. at 168. She had no explanation for prior relapses when Children were in her care, and Mother acknowledged that her use of methamphetamine, consistent relapses, and the chronic relocation of the Children because of these circumstances was harmful to them. Id. at 175-76. Mother also testified that, in regard to An.D. and Ar.D.,

[a]s of right now they are old[ ] enough to understand that [ ] we have tried to sober ourselves up and we have ․ failed them. And we will understand that they want to get adopted and we do not want to be pushy and we want to have a relationship with them and we want them to be happy and they have told us[ ] what will be the best choice for them, and I understand and I'm not gonna [sic] stop that from happening. I want them to be happy.

Id. at 178-79.

[18] By the time the termination hearing was held, Ar.D. was twelve years old and had been out of Parents’ care since January 2022 except for a brief THV with Father that ended in February 2022. An.D. was fifteen years old and had been removed since January 2022 except for two THVs, one that ended in February 2022 and one from late 2023 to July 2024. Al.D., six years old, and Ad.D., five years old, had been removed since January 2022 except for the THV from early 2024 to July 2024. The CASA testified that “permanency [was] in the best interest of the four children and [she] believe[d] that [was] adoption for each of them.” Id. at 181. The family's permanency worker testified that the conditions that led to the Children's removal from the home, namely their struggles with substance abuse, had not been remedied by the termination hearing.

[19] The court terminated Parents’ parental rights as to all four Children and entered an order with findings of fact consistent with those above. The court concluded that, in light of Parents’ continued use of methamphetamine and continued relationship despite domestic violence concerns, there was a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in Children's placement outside of the home would not be remedied and that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Children. Specifically, the court concluded that “Mother and Father failed to demonstrate that they can provide a safe and stable home free from illegal substances or that they can be sober caregivers” and it was in Children's best interests for Parents’ parental rights to be terminated. Mother's Appendix Vol. 3 at 221. Mother and Father separately appeal.

Discussion and Decision

1. Standard of Review

[20] Mother and Father challenge the termination of their parental rights on different grounds, but our standard of review remains the same.

[21] Because “the parent-child relationship is one of the most valued relationships in our culture[,]” the involuntary termination of a parent's rights is subject to a high bar. In re Z.B., 108 N.E.3d 895, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005)), trans. denied. Parents have a fundamental liberty interest “in the care, custody, and control” of their children. Id. (quoting Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147). However, “a trial court must subordinate the interest of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination.” In re K.T., 137 N.E.3d 317, 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[22] In order to terminate the parent-child relationship, DCS must allege and prove that termination is in the child's best interests, there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child, and, in this case, that at least one of the following is true:

(2) That:

(A) the child has been removed from the parent and has been under the supervision of a local office ․ for at least fifteen [ ] months of the most recent twenty-two [ ] 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 ․; 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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c)(2), (3), (d)(2), (3), (4).⁴ Given the fundamental interest at issue, DCS must prove these elements “upon clear and convincing evidence.” I.C. § 31-37-14-2.

[23] If the trial court finds DCS met this burden, it must order the termination of the parent-child relationship and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(c). Owing significant deference to the trial court's “unique position to assess the evidence,” we review its findings and conclusions only for clear error. K.T., 137 N.E.3d at 326; Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). A review for clear error requires that we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether those findings support the judgment. Z.B., 108 N.E.3d at 900. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. Lastly, we accept any unchallenged findings of fact as true. Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.

2. Mother's Arguments

[24] Mother asserts DCS failed to present sufficient evidence of two elements, namely: (1) that there was a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted in Children's placement outside of her care would not be remedied; and (2) that there was a reasonable probability the continuation of her relationship with Children posed a threat to their well-being, safety, physical health, or life. She does not challenge any of the trial court's findings of fact.

[25] To determine whether it was unlikely Mother would remedy the conditions that resulted in Children's placement outside her care, we must first identify the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement. K.T., 137 N.E.3d at 326. Next, we consider “whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” Id. (quoting In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014)). The trial court was required to judge Mother's fitness to care for the Children at the time of the termination hearing as well as consider any “habitual patterns of conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied), trans. denied. “The trial court may also consider services offered to the parent ․ and the parent's response to those services, as evidence of whether conditions will be remedied.” Id. In this respect, DCS only had to prove “that there is a reasonable probability that [Mother's] behavior will not change.” Id. (quoting In re Kay.L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)).

[26] The trial court found Children were removed and placed outside the home because of Parents’ substance abuse, housing instability, and domestic violence issues. And despite some progress made by Parents, “they continue[d] to use methamphetamine and they continue[d] to remain in a relationship with each other despite the other parent's use.” Mother's App. Vol. 3 at 221. The record shows that at the outset of the CHINS proceedings, Mother was ordered to vacate the home due to a positive screen for methamphetamine, and Children were ultimately removed from Parents after Father tested positive as well. Although the three boys were later approved for a THV with Parents, Father was removed from the home after testing positive for methamphetamine and then the boys were removed from their home when Mother also tested positive for methamphetamine. From that point on, the Children never returned to either Parents’ care.

[27] Next we examine whether there is a reasonable probability the conditions that caused Children to be placed outside the home will not be remedied. The trial court concluded in the affirmative, noting “Mother and Father failed to demonstrate that they can provide a safe and stable home free from illegal substances or that they can be sober caregivers.” Id. The court's conclusion is supported by its findings and the record. The underlying proceedings spanned four years, and during that time Mother was unable to maintain her sobriety despite the multitude of services provided and completed. Although she had notable stretches of sobriety in 2023, Mother experienced many relapses in 2024 which ultimately resulted in the termination of the THV, another substance use assessment, and another attempt in drug treatment. She tested positive for methamphetamine the same month she was released from her second round of treatment and admitted to using methamphetamine only weeks before the termination hearing. The CASA testified that she “honestly [didn't] know of other services [than] what have been offered to them to date” that could help them remain sober. Tr. at 183. The DCS permanency worker agreed and testified that the conditions that led to Children's removal and continued placement outside the home had not been remedied. See id. at 147, 163.

[28] In support of her argument, Mother points to the fact that by the date of the termination hearing, she “had completed [IOT], was participating in visits, was mostly providing negative drug screens, and was participating in services overall.” Appellant's Brief at 19. She claims she only needs more time and that she “has shown that she can overcome the conditions that led to the removal of her children.” Id. However, her participation in services does not negate her continued use of methamphetamine, and she does not challenge any of the court's findings that reveal her inability to be a “sober caregiver[ ].” Mother's App. Vol 3 at 221. Her assertion that she has shown she can overcome the conditions that led to Children's removal cannot be squared with her continued use of methamphetamine. Mother is merely requesting that we reweigh the evidence, and we decline to do so.

[29] In light of the court's unchallenged findings and the record showing Mother's inability to remedy the conditions over four years with DCS's assistance, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Mother was unlikely to remedy the conditions that caused Children's removal and therefore, the conclusion was not clearly erroneous. See In re C.S., 190 N.E.3d 434, 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (finding sufficient evidence that the conditions would not be remedied where Mother testified to using methamphetamine earlier that month and had a “years-long history of drug use”), trans. denied.

[30] Because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(d) requires proof of only one of the scenarios listed in the statute, clear and convincing evidence of the reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in Children's placement outside of Mother's care would not be remedied is sufficient to support the trial court's decision. See A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158 n.6 (finding it unnecessary to address the trial court's “threat to the [child's] well-being” conclusion because the statute is written in the disjunctive and there was sufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that the conditions causing the children's placement outside the home would not be remedied). Therefore, we do not address whether the trial court's conclusion regarding the threat to Children's well-being was clearly erroneous.

3. Father's Argument

[31] Father challenges a different element of the statute, asserting there was insufficient evidence that termination of his and Children's relationship was in their best interests. He also does not challenge any of the trial court's findings.

[32] The trial court must consider the totality of the evidence in determining whether termination of a parent's right is in the child's best interests. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. This requires subordinating the parent's interests to those of the child. Id. While DCS must prove this element by clear and convincing evidence, such evidence “need not reveal that the continued custody of the parent [ ] is wholly inadequate for the child's very survival. Rather it is sufficient to show ․ that the child's emotional and physical development are threatened by the respondent parent's custody.” In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234-35 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 148). Many factors are considered when assessing a child's physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Id. at 1235. A central factor in that assessment is the child's need for permanency. Id. The recommendations of service providers to terminate parental rights also carry weight in the consideration. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[33] The court concluded that termination was in Children's best interests based on Parents’ inability to maintain sobriety or “a safe and stable home free from illegal substances[.]” Mother's App. Vol 3 at 221. There is ample support for this conclusion in the record and the court's findings. Father's circumstances were much the same as Mother's in that despite some stretches of sobriety, he continued to use methamphetamine throughout the case. He admitted to using drugs shortly after his second round of drug treatment and as recently as a few weeks before the termination hearing. His and Mother's relapses resulted in Children being continuously moved in and out of the home. Father acknowledged the harm methamphetamine, his relapses, and the lack of permanency cause Children. See Tr. at 62.

[34] The trial court made multiple findings about Children's progress outside of Parents’ care which Father does not challenge. Notably, Children were moved approximately seven times throughout the duration of the case, but the trial court found that by the time of the termination hearing, all four children were doing well in their pre-adoptive homes. See Mother's App. Vol. 3 at 219. Throughout the CHINS proceedings, Al.D. and Ad.D. were consistently anxious about where they would be staying, what would happen to them, and where they were going to go next. But, by the time of the hearing, they were doing well together in their foster home. See Tr. at 65. With this stability, Al.D.’s education has improved and Ad.D. has had fewer meltdowns. An.D. suffered from migraines and struggled in school while he was in Parents’ care but both issues have resolved since he was placed in his pre-adoptive home. Mother's App. Vol. 3 at 219. Ar.D. struggled with anxiety and self-harm while she was in Parents’ care, and she consistently declined to speak to them or participate in visits. Id.; see Tr at 116. However, the court found she has been “thriving” since she was placed with her current foster family over two years ago, and she wants them to adopt her. Mother's App. Vol. 3 at 219. The family's DCS permanency worker testified that it is in Children's best interests for Parents’ parental rights to be terminated because the “[C]hildren deserve permanency, and they've been waiting a long time to get it.” Tr. at 150. The CASA testified the same. See Tr. at 181-182.

[35] Father also points to his participation in services and his continued “work at achieving and maintaining long-term sobriety” to negate the trial court's conclusion that it was in Children's best interest to terminate his parental rights. Father's Brief at 17. He cites his success “at being attentive to all of the children, pick[ing] up on their nonverbal cues, and [ ] demonstrat[ing] that he cares for their well-being[.]” Id. at 19. As was true above for Mother, Father's participation in services does not negate his continued use of methamphetamine, and he does not challenge any of the court's findings that demonstrate his inability to be a “sober caregiver[ ].” Mother's App. Vol 3 at 221. The evidence shows he had twenty positive drugs screens in 2024 alone, relapsed only days after completing his second round of drug treatment, and used methamphetamine only weeks before the termination hearing. We acknowledge that Father and Mother alike expressed their love for Children and were often engaged and prepared to meet their needs during their visitations, but love and occasional instances of engagement do not nullify Parents’ consistent drug use, the impact that drug use has on Children, or Children's need for permanency in a drug-free home. Father's arguments amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, and we will not do so.

[36] Based the totality of the evidence, including Father's inability to be a stable, safe, and sober caregiver after four years of services, Children's improved circumstances since being out of Parents’ care, and testimony from the permanency worker and CASA that termination was in Children's best interests, there was sufficient evidence to support the court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in Children's best interests. See J.S., 906 N.E.2d at 237 (concluding there was sufficient evidence that termination of parental rights was in child's best interest based in part on parents’ “failure to ․ benefit from the many services available to them” and testimony from the DCS case manager and CASA that termination was in child's best interests).

Conclusion

[37] Parents have failed to show there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusions. Therefore, we affirm.

[38] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother gave birth to their fifth child in the midst of the CHINS proceedings, but that child was not made a part of those proceedings and is not a subject of this appeal.

2.   Children were also required to participate in certain services. Al.D. and Ad.D. were required to participate in supervised visitation with Parents. An.D. and Ar.D. were ordered to complete a diagnostic evaluation and participate in school-based case management, individual counseling, and supervised visitation.

3.   While not related to substance use, Mother also pled guilty in California to welfare fraud and was ordered to complete 120 hours of community service and pay fees.

4.   The termination petitions in this case were filed before the amended version of Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4 became effective on July 1, 2025. However, the relevant portions of the statutes, including those quoted above, remain the same.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.