A.R., Appellant-Respondent v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A.R. (Mother) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to one of her minor children, Z.M. (Child).¹ Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Mother gave birth to Child in April 2018. At the time, Mother's three other minor children, Child's half-siblings C.M., A.M., and B.M. (collectively, Siblings),² had been in the custody of Mother's parents (Grandmother and Grandfather, collectively Grandparents) since 2014 under a third-party custody order in Cause No. 49C01-1011-JP-047994 (the Paternity Case). For many years, Mother had been unable to care for Siblings due to her drug use and general instability.

[4] Grandparents became the legal guardians of Child in 2021, after Mother was convicted, pursuant to a plea agreement, in two separate criminal causes. The first involved an incident on September 16, 2021, in which Mother pushed Grandmother multiple times and then threw an object at B.M., who was eleven years old at the time. Mother was convicted of two counts of Level 6 felony domestic battery. The second incident occurred the day after the first, when Mother returned to Grandparents’ home in violation of a no-contact order and battered Grandfather. Mother was convicted of domestic battery, invasion of privacy, and interference with the reporting of a crime, all Class A misdemeanors.

[5] In March 2022, Grandmother died, and it became a struggle for Grandfather to continue caring for Child and Siblings alone. Additionally, his own health began to deteriorate. Grandfather eventually sought to have his third-party custody of Siblings terminated. On July 24, 2023, the trial court in the Paternity Case issued an order terminating Grandfather's custody of Siblings and denying Mother's request for custody of A.M. and C.M., who were fourteen and fifteen years old at the time.³ The court noted that Mother lived in an uninhabitable trailer, which lacked running water and a roof and was rodent infested, and that there was insufficient evidence that Mother was free of illicit drug use. The court ordered the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) to take custody of Siblings.

[6] On July 25, 2023, Josie Hawkins, a DCS family case manager (FCM), went to Mother's trailer and found Child and C.M. there. B.M. was at Grandfather's home, and A.M. was out of town. All four children were taken into emergency DCS custody, and petitions alleging that each of them was a child in need of services (CHINS) were filed. With respect to Child, DCS alleged that Grandfather had left Child in Mother's care and that the reasons for the guardianship had not been sufficiently remedied. DCS specifically alleged that Mother's home was uninhabitable, Mother disclosed recent marijuana use and untreated depression, and there had been domestic violence in the home between Mother and B.M.

[7] Following a hearing on September 5, 2023, the trial court adjudicated Child a CHINS and thereafter issued a written order with findings consistent with the allegations made in the CHINS petition. The trial court later held a dispositional hearing on October 5, 2023, and made the express finding in its dispositional order that services were needed to “ensure the Child will have adequate supervision from a sober caregiver on an ongoing basis in a suitable and stable home where she is not exposed to domestic violence.” Appendix at 105. To help achieve this, the trial court ordered Mother to, among other things: complete a mental health/substance abuse evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations; secure and maintain a legal, stable source of income; “maintain safe, sustainable, stable housing with adequate bedding, functional utilities, adequate supplies of food and food preparation facilities”; abstain from using alcohol or illegal or controlled substances, including “THC products”; submit to random drug screens; not allow Child to be exposed to domestic violence; and complete domestic violence services as referred by the FCM. Id. at 106, 107.

[8] Mother consistently participated in services and visited with Child throughout the case. She made progress in services and worked with therapists to address multiple mental health diagnoses, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder, and unspecified depressive disorder. Mother was also diagnosed with several substance use disorders, including cannabis.

[9] On October 11, 2024, Mother began a trial home visit (THV) with Child. The THV ended unsuccessfully two months later, after a domestic violence incident between Mother and her boyfriend (Boyfriend).⁴ This incident occurred in the presence of Child, as well as Boyfriend's minor son. Child reported to her homebased therapist that Mother and Boyfriend were hitting each other and that she was frightened. Boyfriend suffered scratches and a black eye, but Mother claimed that she could recall only a verbal argument with him. Mother reported to FCM Hawkins that she believed she was “triggered by her PTSD” and “blacked out” during the argument. Id. at 170-71. FCM Hawkins removed Child from the home, and the trial court later ordered Child's continued detention by DCS. The court noted in its detention order that there was credible evidence that Mother was intoxicated during the domestic violence incident.

[10] On February 19, 2025, DCS filed a petition to involuntary terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother and Child. The fact-finding hearing was held on April 28, 2025. At that time, Mother was still testing positive for THC and was unemployed and entirely financially reliant on Boyfriend, who was currently married to another woman with whom he has two children. Mother and Boyfriend had moved about five weeks earlier, after being evicted, to a home that did not have fully functioning utilities. Although the water issue had been resolved by the time of the hearing, Mother admitted that the home did not have functioning electricity yet and was in a state of remodeling. Mother testified that she “need[ed] time to get [the home] to where it is supposed to be.” Id. at 95.

[11] Regarding housing, FCM testified that Mother had lived in five different places in Indiana since Child's removal twenty-one months earlier in July 2023. Mother moved from the original uninhabitable trailer in Spencer to Anderson, where she lived with an individual who had a history of methamphetamine use. She then moved to Poland for an unspecified period, before moving to Bloomington to live in a rental trailer with Boyfriend around April 2024. Less than a year later, Mother and Boyfriend were evicted and moved to an unfinished four-bedroom home in Ellettsville, which Boyfriend was reportedly buying on contract.⁵

[12] In addition to housing instability, Mother continued to test positive for THC over the life of the CHINS case, including in the months following her failed THV with Child and leading up to the termination hearing. Mother testified that she complied with the court's order not to use THC products “about half the time” and that THC “is one of those things I only do when I absolutely have to, and I feel like I need to.” Id. at 110.

[13] Further, although Mother actively engaged in therapy to address her PTSD and anxiety symptoms, which had negatively impacted her ability to parent, Mother was resistant to medical management until shortly before the termination hearing. She started taking mental health medication in February 2025, which Mother's therapist reported had a significant positive effect.

[14] Melissa Byers, a homebased therapist, began working with Child in March 2024 on behavior therapy techniques to address emotional regulation. Byers testified that she “could tell that [Child] had experienced trauma by the way she reacts to certain things.” Id. at 49. For example, Byers had to go to Child's school during the THV when Child had an emotional meltdown – crying, screaming, and hiding under a table – because she feared that Mother would not be at home when she left school. Child's trauma was based, at least in large part, on the significant caregiver instability she had experienced throughout her life both before and during the CHINS proceedings.

[15] At the time of the termination hearing, Child was in a preadoptive home, where she had been progressing well since the failed THV with Mother.⁶ The foster parents – her third placement – wished to adopt Child, and Child had recently expressed excitement about being adopted by them to her court-appointed special advocate (CASA). Child's foster father, noting Mother and Child's bond, expressed a willingness to maintain contact between them in a way that supports Child's best interests.

[16] FCM Hawkins acknowledged Mother's positive engagement in services but expressed continued concerns with respect to Mother's ongoing housing and income instability and use of THC. Ultimately, FCM Hawkins recommended termination of parental rights and explained:

[Mother] and [Child] have a very strong relationship that I have seen, but we also have been involved with his family for close to 2 years now and we are very close to where we were when we very first started when it comes to home conditions[.] [W]hen we first became involved with the family [Mother] had employment and now she hasn't for approximately over a year now. [Mother is] continuing to use THC products, [Child] needs permanency, and I am concerned about the stability with [Mother.]

Transcript at 78.

[17] Similarly, Child's CASA opined that termination of parental rights was in Child's best interests, explaining:

I have no doubt that [Mother] loves [Child] and [Child] loves her mother. I am just concerned that [Mother] is not able to provide her with a stable sober home, she doesn't have employment, her house isn't appropriate for children right now, she has consistently testified positive for THC which I think she wasn't honest about her psychological evaluation, she had a failed [THV] visit with [Child] already and that was due to the domestic violence incident, just have a lot of concerns.

Id. at 87. She added that the THV with A.M. also failed and that A.M. reported “a lot of yelling and fighting” in Mother and Boyfriend's home. Id. at 88.

[18] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On June 18, 2025, the trial court issued an order terminating Mother's parental rights with respect to Child. This order was amended the next day to make its legal conclusions consistent with statutory changes that the court had “erroneously omitted or failed to update” in the initial order.⁷ Appendix at 52.

[19] Mother now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[20] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and thus we will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Matter of Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019). In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside its 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.

[21] Our review for clear error 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 must 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

[22] Although parental rights are of constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities. In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In addition, a court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

[23] 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 I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d) (Subsection (d)); (2) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child; and (3) termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests. I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c); I.C. § 31-34-12-2.

[24] Subsection (d) contains a lengthy list of circumstances supporting termination of parental rights, of which the following three were alleged by DCS and found proven by the trial court:

(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.

While three circumstances listed in Section (d) were alleged in this case, we observe that any one of them would be sufficient on its own. In other words, if we affirm one of the circumstances found by the trial court, we need not address the others. See In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied.

[25] On appeal, regarding Section (d), Mother challenges only the trial court's conclusion with respect to the likelihood that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal from Mother's home will not be remedied. As noted above, however, the trial court also found that the circumstances listed in Section (d)(2) and (4) had been proven by DCS. As Mother does not specifically challenge these conclusions, either one of which is sufficient, she has effectively waived her Section (d) challenge.

[26] Waiver notwithstanding, we observe that the evidence clearly supports the trial court's determination that Child had been removed from Mother and under DCS supervision for at least fifteen months out of the twenty-two months leading up to the termination hearing and that, despite reasonable reunification efforts by DCS, Mother had been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in Child being placed in care outside Mother's home. Indeed, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother had been unemployed for over one year, was still regularly testing positive for THC ⁸ despite a history of substance use disorder, had only five weeks earlier – following an eviction – moved into a home that did not have fully functioning utilities and was not ready for Child, and was entirely dependent on Boyfriend for housing and other financial needs. Further, Mother has a history of domestic violence, both as a victim and aggressor, and had engaged in a physical altercation with Boyfriend in the presence of Child and another child during the THV, about four months before the termination hearing.⁹

[27] In sum, as relevant to Section (d)(2), the court found that Mother's “general instability and THC use” had continued and that since Child's removal, “Mother has not been able to fulfill her parental obligations as a safe, sober caregiver to [ ] Child and has not progressed to the point that [ ] Child could be safely returned to her care.” Id. at 57, 56. Mother has not established on appeal that the trial court's Section (d)(2) conclusion was clearly erroneous. And her general arguments that she had secured stable housing and that she was only using legally purchased Delta 8 products ¹⁰ are improper requests to reweigh the evidence and to credit her own testimony.

[28] Mother also challenges the trial court's determination that termination of her parental rights is in Child's best interests. When making a best-interest determination, a trial court must look at the totality of the evidence and, in doing so, subordinate the parent's interests to those of the child, with the child's need for permanency being a central consideration. See Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. Further, “we have previously held that recommendations of the case manager and court-appointed advocate, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests[.]” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[29] Mother argues that she made significant progress in services, especially with respect to seeking out trauma therapy and medication management after the failed THV, and that she was more stable than she had been throughout the CHINS case. Although unemployed, Mother contends that homebased services were successful because she learned to utilize community resources, including the trustee's office and food banks, obtained a suitable home, and was in a long-term relationship with a man who provided financial support to her. Finally, Mother notes her strong bond with Child and their consistently positive supervised visits.

[30] The trial court's findings recognize Mother's consistent participation in services, and the progress she has made in therapy, as reflected by the testimony of her therapists. Despite her active participation and efforts, however, Mother's housing was still unstable and inadequate, and she continued to regularly test positive for THC. As discussed above, the trial court determined that Mother remained unable to fulfill her parental obligations as a safe, sober caregiver to Child and was not in a place where Child could be safely returned to her care. The trial court explained:

It is without question that Mother loves [ ] Child. Any fair assessment of the evidence requires acknowledgement that Mother made efforts to participate in services and improve her circumstances. Unfortunately, after approximately 21 months of services, [ ] Child's need for safety, stability, and permanency are still unlikely to be met in Mother's care despite her participation in services.

Appendix at 58. And the court found that uncertainty and lack of permanency had “caused significant emotional distress” to Child and that Child was frightened during the failed THV. Appendix at 56.

[31] The trial court's decision to terminate parental rights despite Mother's efforts toward reunification was in line with the recommendations of FCM Hawkins and the CASA. Their testimonies reflect continued concerns regarding Mother's ability to provide Child with the stability that Child so desperately needs. As FCM Hawkins explained, after nearly two years, Mother had not attained stable housing or employment and had not stopped using THC.

[32] At the termination hearing, Mother acknowledged that she had been a “very unstable person for a long time” and that she had “never been stable enough” to have custody of her children. Transcript at 106, 104. Mother claimed, however, that that all changed after the failed THV, which caused her to increase her mental health therapy sessions and get on medication. Mother also testified that she had a better support system now, including Boyfriend, and she was more focused and organized.

[33] The trial court was not required to weigh Mother's testimony and that of her therapists more heavily than the testimony and recommendations of the CASA and of FCM Hawkins, who had been involved with the family since Child's removal. Nor did the trial court need to make Child wait longer for permanency and stability. Mother has not shown that the trial court's determination regarding Child's best interests was clearly erroneous.

[34] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Z.M.’s father (Father) voluntarily relinquished his parental rights and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Siblings were all born between 2008 and 2010, and they share the same father, who is alleged to have sexually abused two of them.

3.   Mother did not seek custody of B.M. A no-contact order remained in place as a result of Mother battering him in September 2021. B.M. also made new allegations that she battered him in June 2023, when he briefly stayed with Mother despite the no-contact order.

4.   A separate THV between Mother and A.M. had also ended unsuccessfully that summer after A.M. disclosed arguing and fighting in the home that caused A.M. to “have some suicidal ideations and thoughts of self-harm[.]” Transcript at 72.

5.   Mother was not a party to the contract.

6.   Siblings also remained out of Mother's home and involved in pending CHINS cases. A.M. was in a foster home, and C.M. and B.M. were in residential programs at Indiana United Methodist Children's Home.

7.   Our legislature has made extensive changes to Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4, which changes became effective March 11, 2024. DCS filed its petition in February 2025, under the 2024 amended version of the statute.

8.   The trial court found that Mother had “prioritized THC use over [ ] Child's timely return to her care” and gave Mother's decision “significant weight in considering whether Mother has committed to significant, long-term change toward ensuring [ ] Child has a safe and stable home.” Appendix at 57.

9.   The trial court acknowledged that Mother had started medication two months before the hearing, which was helping regulate her emotions, but the court noted Mother's prior reluctance and the lack of information “concerning her historic compliance with a mental health medication regimen.” Id. at 55.

10.   The clinical psychologist who performed Mother's psychological evaluation in October 2024 testified that her treatment recommendations were that Mother pursue trauma-focused therapy and maintain sobriety, which would include refraining from using Delta 8 products.

Altice, Judge.

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