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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] K.M. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights over her minor children, M.M., III, and C.M. (collectively, “the Children”).¹ Mother raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court clearly erred when it terminated her rights. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to M.M., III, on January 4, 2011. Then, on November 1, 2011, Mother gave birth to C.M. On November 30, 2011, Mother first became involved with the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) “due to methamphetamine use.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 67. Mother admitted to the allegations, and the case was successfully closed the following September.

[3] On June 28, 2013, DCS removed the Children from Mother's care “due to substance use and domestic violence[.]” Id. DCS returned the Children to Mother's care on January 30, 2014, and then converted the case to an Informal Adjustment (“IA”). The IA was successfully closed that October. DCS began another IA with Mother in late 2020 “for domestic violence, physical abuse, and substance abuse,” but that IA was closed on April 27, 2021. Id.

[4] On March 26, 2023, DCS investigated a report that the Children “were the victims of neglect[.]” Id. at 61. Specifically, the report alleged that M.M. (“Father”) had hit the Children's half-sibling, that the half-sibling had hit Father back, and that the Children had witnessed the altercation. DCS went to the hospital to speak with the half-sibling. While there, the DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) observed that Mother was “under the influence” and “acting bizarrely.” Id. Mother admitted that she had used THC two days prior and that, had she known the hospital visit would take so long, “she would have gone and gotten high.” Id. On March 29, the FCM went to Mother's home and observed it “to be barely above minimum standards.” Id. at 62. On April 4, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). The parents admitted to the allegations and the court issued its dispositional order.

[5] On June 14, DCS removed the Children from Mother's care due to allegations of domestic violence. DCS then filed a rule to show cause after Mother failed to participate in services and continued to use illegal substances. Prior to a hearing, Mother “increased her compliance,” and DCS dismissed the rule to show cause. Id. at 62. However, Mother “continued to test positive for illegal substances including methamphetamine,” and her services were closed out “unsuccessfully[.]” Id. at 63.

[6] On September 10, 2024, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights as to the Children. The trial court held a multi-day fact-finding hearing on DCS's petition. After the conclusion of that hearing, the court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions thereon:

1. The Court having heard all the evidence, observed the witnesses who testified in open Court, and reviewed the exhibits now, finds as follows. The Court determines there are six pieces of evidence which support a termination of parental rights as filed by the Department of Child Services (DCS). Any one of these pieces of evidence individually, or in combination, support the petition.

2. The Court first determines that this is not the first interaction with DCS by these parents. CHINS actions were initiated at least three previous times prior to this case. This alone should not disqualify Mother from proceeding as the parent of the two children ․

3. Third, and perhaps most controlling, both parents have a history of failing drug screens. As only one example, of 18 drug screens within a certain period of time, 14 of these drug screens were positive for the use of methamphetamines or amphetamines. The Court believes that the two children deserve to have parents who are sober, and not repetitively using illegal and controlled substances. In fact, it appears the use of controlled substances has been a history of these two parents not only in this case, but prior to this case and the previous CHINS interactions.

4. A fourth reason for the termination of parental rights is the criminal activity of the Mother. In fact, she has pending charges in Vigo Superior Court for a battery criminal charge. The Court takes judicial notice of that proceeding. The Court also notes that from the probable cause affidavit, the Mother involved one of her children in committing that offense.

5. A fifth reason for termination of parental rights is the unstable housing that Mother is attempting to provide for the children. At one point, Mother was living in a motel.

6. A sixth reason for the termination of parental rights is the suspicious activity of Mother avoiding the family services provided by DCS, and her attempt to seek services outside these offers. At best, Mother attempts to persuade the Court that she has participated in on-line internet counseling, although this information provided to the Court shows that these collateral services are undated, without signatures approving the same, and are being allegedly supplied by suspicious on-line internet programs.

7. Stacy Brown testified about her time as the parents[’] provider. She did their substance use disorder assessment and provided them with Matrix services for substance abuse. She completed the assessment in July of 2023. It recommended Matrix services for both parents ․ Mother attended the classes and individual therapy but failed to provide negative drug screens. Both parents were closed out of these services in July of 2024 due to having no contact with the providers since February of 2024. Mrs. Brown had concerns for the parents[’] sobriety and the parents being triggers for each other but neither of these issues were ever resolved. Mrs. Brown has seen lots of patients and admits that relapse is common which is why relapse prevention services are so important. Mrs. Brown worked with the mother on various techniques such as learning self awareness but mother never successfully used them.

8. Shawn Parr testified about her time providing the children with services as a therapist․ There are concerns about reunification due to ongoing substance abuse issues with the parents․ Mrs. Parr also has concerns for Mother's emotional outbursts. She does not expect parents to be perfect and recognized that CHINS cases can be traumatic and cause emotional outbursts from parents but that the parents usually get better as the case progresses. In this case, there has been no progress as demonstrated by Mother's outbursts that Mrs. Parr has seen at child and family team meetings (“CFTM's”).

9. Tiffany Shewmake testified about her time supervising visits for both parents since July of 2023․ Throughout the case, there have been concerns expressed about the parents discussing the case with the children and around the children. The parents do not always bring appropriate activities for the visits. The visits have remained at the same level of supervision throughout the case due to a lack of improvement․

* * *

11. Amy Bell testified about her time as the parents’ homebased caseworker from June 2023 to February 2024․ Mother told [Bell] that she attended online courses but Mrs. Bell was never able to independently corroborate this.

12. Melody Lunsford testified about her time on the case as an assessment FCM in April, May, and June 2023. She investigated allegations of domestic violence in front of the children and substance use that were substantiated. The parents engaged in domestic violence in front of the children as well as physically harmed one of their other children during their fight. FCM Lunsford put in service referrals for the family and held a CFTM with them. Mother admitted to the domestic violence, Father using methamphetamine, and that Father harmed one of their other children during the altercation. Father admitted to the domestic violence. FCM Lunsford was trained on how to administer drug screens the same way that all DCS [FCMs] are trained and administered the screens according to her training as did all the FCM's during this case. Both parents tested positive during FCM Lunsford's assessments. DCS attempted to keep the children in the home during FCM Lunsford's involvement but due to continued and repeated domestic violence as well as ongoing drug use the children had to be detained. Both parents admitted to CHINS and the children were adjudicated CHINS on May 8, 2023. Disposition was ordered on June 5, 2023, but was modified on June 16, 2023.

13. Michelle Puckett testified about her time on the case as a permanency FCM from April 2023 to December 2023. The parents failed to engage in services in a meaningful way during that time. Mother maintained sobriety during the months of September and October 2023 but relapsed and never had any periods of sobriety again throughout the case. There was a visit that had to be ended early due to the parents playing the game hangman and choosing words that were inappropriate. There were issues with the children escaping during visits due to lack of proper supervision.

14. Tabitha Greenwell testified about her time on the case as a permanency FCM from December 2023 to March 2024. Mother completed the Matrix program twice and was recommended to complete in-patient services but she refused. Despite completing the program twice, Mother routinely screened positive and admitted to using illegal substances including methamphetamine during this time. Service provider Amy Bell was replaced on the case due to there being issues with the parents screening positive but lying to Mrs. Bell about their results.

15. Melissa Brubeck testified about her time on the case as a permanency FCM from March 2024 to September 2024. Mother attended some outpatient and Matrix services but quit attending after a month or two and was closed out unsuccessfully. Mother only ha[d] a few negative screen[s] during this time. Mother routinely denied her drug use and claimed the screens were wrong which raises significant questions about her honesty and ability to admit and address her substance abuse issues. Despite denying her substance use, Mother sough[t] out substance use services on her own but never enrolled in them and refused to enroll in any DCS paid programs․

16. Kandi Cochran testified about her time on the case as a permanency FCM from September 2024 to February 2025. Mother was inconsistent with her home based case management and lack[ed] follow through. Mother continued with her pattern of only producing a few negative screens. Mother was supposed to work on sobriety in her services and claimed she was doing EFFECT outpatient services on her own but failed to ever provide DCS with proof of this․ There were monthly [CFTMs] but Mother only attended one CFTM with FCM Cochran and it had to be ended early due to Mother's bad behavior. Mother was charged with domestic battery in October 2024. Mother continued to have issues with housing stability and lived in a hotel for a period of time.

17. Natasha Smith testified about her time on the case as a permanency FCM from February 2025 until now. Mother has yet to achieve sobriety. FCM Smith attempted to have [CFTMs] with Mother but Mother did not attend them․

18. The Child's [Court-Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”)]/[Guardian At Litem (“GAL”)] is supportive of the plan of termination of parental rights and believes it is in the Children's best interests to be adopted. CASA director Dawn Creech testified as to CASA's opinion on the case․

* * *

20. Mother testified on her own behalf. Mother's defense can be summed up as she is sober, the DCS drug screens are wrong, and she has done services on her own outside of DCS. Mother never provided any proof of her sobriety or that the DCS screens were inaccurate. Mother admits that throughout the CHINS case, there were numerous hearings where she could have raised concerns or made requests but that today's hearing is the first time she has stated anything on the record. She gave no good reason for this discrepancy.

* * *

24. Throughout the underlying CHINS case, Mother only had two months where she produced all negative screens in September and October 2023. Between April 2023 and September 2023 and from October 2023 to now, Mother has had at least one drug screen be positive for illegal substances every month.

Id. at 63-68 (record citation omitted).

[7] Based on those findings, the court concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for the Children's removal from Mother's care or continued placement outside of her care will not be remedied; that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the Children's well-being; that termination of the parental rights is in the Children's best interests; and that DCS has a satisfactory plan for the Children, that being adoption. Accordingly, the court terminated Mother's parental rights. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Mother contends that the court clearly erred when it terminated her parental rights as to the Children. We begin our review of this issue 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.

[9] 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.

[10] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS must file a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship. As the Indiana General Assembly has provided:

(c) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege:

(1) the existence of one (1) or more of the circumstances described in subsection (d);

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

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

(d) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege 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 (2024). If the court finds that the allegations in the petition are true, “the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a). 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, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-14-2).

[11] Here, in terminating Mother'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.

[12] Mother does not challenge any of the court's findings of fact. Thus, we accept the findings 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). Mother also does not challenge the court's conclusions that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or placement outside of her care will not be remedied or that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Children. Rather, Mother alleges only that the court erred when it concluded that the termination of her rights was in the Children's best interests.

[13] In determining what is in a child's best interests, a court is required to look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the evidence. A.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A parent's historical inability to provide “adequate housing, stability, and supervision,” in addition to the parent's current inability to do so, supports finding termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Id. at 221. When making its decision, the court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child. See Stewart v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re J.S.), 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship.” Id.

[14] On appeal, Mother asserts that the court erred when it determined that the termination of her rights is in the Children's best interests because she “had completed services on her own that began to address the issues for which the [C]hildren were removed.” Appellant's Br. at 10. In particular, she contends that she “completed the Matrix program twice to address her methamphetamine addiction” and that, while she “had yet to achieve long-term sobriety, she was committed to continuing to work on controlling her addiction.” Id. She also asserts that she “completed domestic violence education” and “received mental health treatment[.]” Id. And she contends that she has “maintained a bond with both children[.]” Id. at 11.

[15] However, the court's unchallenged findings demonstrate that Mother is not capable of providing the Children with a stable home that is free from drug use. Indeed, as the findings demonstrate, Mother's drug use dates back to at least 2011, which resulted in DCS getting involved with the family for the first time. Then, in 2013, DCS removed the Children because of Mother's continued substance abuse, as well as issues with domestic violence. The Children were returned to Mother's care. But then DCS became involved with the family in 2020, again due, in part, to Mother's drug use.

[16] And, after the instant case began, Mother continued to use methamphetamine. During the course of the underlying proceedings, Mother was able to maintain sobriety only for the two months of September and October 2023. After that, Mother relapsed, and she never again maintained any period of sobriety. As the court found, between April and September 2023 and from October 2023 until the date of the hearing, Mother had “had at least one drug screen be positive for illegal substances every month.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 68. Further, throughout the proceedings, DCS offered Mother services to address her drug use. While Mother completed the Matrix program twice, she continued to test positive for methamphetamine. And while she claims she found and attended services on her own, she never provided any proof of her participation to DCS.

[17] Despite the amount of time that Mother has had and the services provided by DCS, Mother has not made any meaningful progress in addressing her drug use. And the Children need permanency. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, the Children had been removed from Mother's care for nearly two years. The Children's FCM and CASA testified that the termination of the parental rights is in the Children's best interests. That testimony and the evidence that Mother has failed to address her drug use support the trial court's determination that the termination of Mother's parental rights is in the Children's best interest.

Conclusion

[18] The unchallenged findings support the trial court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights is in the Children's best interest. The court therefore did not clearly err when it terminated her parental rights. We affirm the trial court's order.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   M.M., the Children's father, consented to the Children's adoption and does not participate in this appeal.

Bailey, Judge.

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