In the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.H.W. and S.G. (Minor Children), and N.W. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] N.W. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to her minor children, J.H.W. and S.G. (the “Children”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] J.H.W. was born to Mother and D.G. (“Father”)¹ in July 2008, and S.G. was born to Mother and Father in July 2018. Mother also has an older daughter, T.W., born in 2001. In 2010, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) opened a child in need of services (“CHINS”) case involving T.W. and J.H.W. due to reports of Mother's mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence. T.W. and J.H.W. were removed from Mother's care, Mother engaged in services, and the CHINS cases were ultimately closed with T.W. and J.H.W. being returned to Mother's care. In 2013, DCS opened an informal adjustment regarding T.W. and J.H.W. to address Mother's substance abuse that was ultimately closed successfully after Mother completed services.

[3] On November 9, 2023, DCS received a report alleging that the Children were victims of neglect. Specifically, Mother “believed that bugs were crawling all over her, though no bugs were on her. Mother tried to bring a knife into a doctor's appointment to help deal with the bugs” and “reportedly sought to cut the bugs out of her or the [C]hildren's skin.” Exhibits Volume III at 9. Mother was admitted to inpatient psychiatric care at the Bowen Center on November 10, 2023, and the Children went to stay with their adult sister, T.W., while Mother was hospitalized. The Bowen Center determined that Mother had relapsed on methamphetamine. On November 13, 2023, Mother was released from the Bowen Center. During a home visit on December 13, 2023, Mother refused to let DCS caseworkers into the home she shared with the Children because she claimed it was “unsafe for guests.” Id. Mother had sores on her face that were consistent with methamphetamine use, and caseworkers thought Mother appeared to be “under the influence.” Id.

[4] Following a home visit on December 20, 2023, DCS sought the emergency removal of the Children from the home due to the “immediate danger” caused by Mother's “poor mental health and substance use.” Id. at 4. Specifically, DCS averred that Mother was “actively using methamphetamine,” there was a bag of methamphetamine in reach of five-year-old S.G., there were burn marks on the bed where S.G. slept with Mother, “Mother's home does not have water,” “Mother believes there are bug[s] everywhere,” she “carried a large knife into a doctor's appointment,” and “Mother's delusions caused her to consider using a knife to remove bugs from her or her children's skin.” Id. at 6. Mother further believed that the Children were possessed by demons and that she may need to perform an exorcism or kill herself to save them. The following day, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children were CHINS. The Children were removed from Mother's care and placed in relative care with T.W.

[5] Following a factfinding hearing on April 12, 2024, the court adjudicated the Children as CHINS. On May 23, 2024, the court issued a dispositional decree ordering Mother to: not use or consume illegal controlled substances, not consume any alcohol, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations, submit to random drug screens, meet with medical and psychiatric professionals and take medications as prescribed, and meet all personal and medical needs in a timely and complete manner.

[6] Mother completed an intake substance abuse assessment. It was noted that Mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and stimulant-induced psychotic disorder. Mother was recommended for individual counseling, moral reasoning therapy, and medical and psychiatric assessments. The court held a review hearing on August 8, 2024. Mother failed to appear. The court found that Mother had not complied with the Children's case plan, had not participated in services, had not enhanced her ability to fulfill her parental obligations, and had not visited with the Children.

[7] Although inconsistent, in 2024 and early 2025, Mother attended some therapy sessions at the Bowen Center during which she presented as paranoid and delusional. During one session, Mother shared that “Elon Musk took her money and that she was going to get him for fraud.” Id. at 54. During another session, she stated that she believed her phone had told her that she inherited money and that people were trying to kill her. Mother attended inpatient treatment in February 2025, began taking psychiatric medication, and made “good progress” in therapy sessions in March 2025. Id. at 61.

[8] On March 24, 2025, DCS filed a verified petition for termination of Mother's parental rights.² During therapy sessions in May 2025, Mother reported that she had stopped taking her psychiatric medications. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on June 26, 2025.

[9] The court held a termination factfinding hearing on July 21, 2025. DCS presented the testimony of Family Case Manager Queeneta Young (“FCM Young”), DCS Caseworker Elise Mandeville, Bowen Center therapist Christina Bolden, visitation supervisors Jeanne Scott and Diane Stiles, and Court Appointed Special Advocate Courtney Thrasher (“CASA Thrasher”). Mother testified on her own behalf.

[10] FCM Young and CASA Thrasher each opined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Children's best interests. They each noted Mother's failure to adequately address her substance abuse and mental health issues.

[11] When asked how she was attending to her mental health needs during the pendency of the CHINS case, Mother stated, “[t]hat's what I seek counseling for sometimes. Most of the time I'm with God. He's my best friend and he helps me through every storm I go through. He is my best friend.” Transcript Volume II at 115. When asked if she was taking the psychiatric medications prescribed for her multiple mental health diagnoses, Mother stated, “No because all the medicines cause false positives.” Id. at 116. Mother insisted that her recent positive drug screen for methamphetamine was “a false positive” and that she did not use illegal substances. Id. Mother admitted that the man she was currently living with has an extensive criminal background involving drugs and domestic violence, that he “did hit [her], yes,” but she was not going to “judge somebody for their past” or “hold him accountable” for hitting her. Id. at 118-119. Mother stated that she had recently personally solved “several” high profile murder cases, including “the Delphi murders” because she is “trying to protect” all children while outsiders are just “trying to make [her] look crazy[.]” Id. at 119. When asked about her failure to adequately communicate with DCS during the pendency of this case, Mother stated that she had “trust issues.” Id. at 111. She stated that she “had no control over where people were cutting [her] cords and making it to where [she] couldn't call nobody for help.” Id.

[12] On September 4, 2025, the court issued its findings of fact, conclusions thereon, and order terminating Mother's parental rights. Specifically, the court found that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children's removal or continued placement outside Mother's care will not be remedied; continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the Children's well-being; termination of Mother's parental rights is in the Children's best interests; and there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, that being adoption by T.W.

Discussion

[13] Mother challenges the termination of her parental rights. Regarding petitions seeking the termination of parental rights, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 provides in pertinent part that DCS must allege as follows:

(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 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.

[14] If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a). A finding in a proceeding to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2. We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014). We confine our review to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings, and then whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. Id. We give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. Id. “Because a case that seems close on a ‘dry record’ may have been much more clear-cut in person, we must be careful not to substitute our judgment for the trial court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at 640. To the extent Mother does not challenge the court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[15] Mother's sole challenge on appeal is to the trial court's conclusion that termination of her parental rights is in the Children's best interests. In determining the best interests of children, the trial court is required to look to the totality of the evidence. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children. Id. The court need not wait until children are irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. The recommendation of a case manager and child advocate to terminate parental rights, 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 children's best interests. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[16] We observe that, based upon the evidence presented, the court found that Mother's serious mental health issues and substance abuse problems have not been adequately addressed by her and remain unresolved and unremedied. As Mother does not challenge the evidence supporting that finding, the court's finding stands as proven.

[17] During her testimony, FCM Young opined that termination of Mother's parental rights and adoption is in the Children's best interests. She stated that she did not believe that Mother would ever be “able to provide the [C]hildren with a safe, secure and nurturing environment.” Transcript Volume II at 93. FCM Young noted that the Children were “doing really well” in their preadoptive placement with their older sister, and that J.H.W. “loves being with her sister” and does not wish to reunite with Mother because she knows that Mother “is still not stable.” Id. at 94-95. FCM Young testified that, throughout the twenty-two month pendency of this case, Mother had made little progress in services. She stated that, “although [Mother] has made progress recently,” she did not “feel as though she's made enough to say the kids can come home.” Id. at 99.

[18] Similarly, CASA Thrasher opined that termination of Mother's parental rights and adoption by their older sister is in the Children's best interest. She stated that although she was “really happy” about Mother's recent progress, due to Mother's continued severe mental health issues, she believed that “even at her best” Mother is unable “to parent at the level that [the Children] need to be safe in a loving home and to have their basic needs met.” Id. at 74. She noted that the Children's preadoptive placement was providing the Children with the “love and stability” that the Children need. Id. at 72.

[19] In light of the recommendation of the case manager and child advocate to terminate parental rights, as well as the unchallenged evidence in the record regarding Mother's failure to remedy the conditions resulting in removal, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights is in the Children's best interests.

[20] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's termination order.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father's parental rights were also terminated, but he does not participate in this appeal.

2.   DCS filed an amended petition on March 28, 2025, to correct certain errors.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.