IN RE: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Jo.B. (Minor Child) and J.B. (Mother) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Delaware Circuit Court involuntarily terminated J.B.’s (“Mother's”) parental rights over her minor child, Jo.B. (“Child”). Mother appeals, arguing that the order terminating her parental rights is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother and N.B. (“Father”) are the biological parents of Child, who was born in February 2015. In April 2022, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Mother had been hospitalized for psychosis. Child, who is autistic and nonverbal, was staying temporarily with his maternal grandmother. A DCS investigation revealed that Mother had used methamphetamine; Child had missed fifty days of school; and Father was incarcerated.¹ Accordingly, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). DCS removed Child from Mother's care and placed him in foster care.

[4] During a hearing on the CHINS petition, Mother stipulated that she “suffers from mental health issues and would benefit from counseling and other services”; that Child had missed fifty days of school; that Child needed services to address his autism; that she and Child would benefit from court-ordered services; and that Child was a CHINS. Ex. Vol. 1, p. 72. The trial court adjudicated Child to be a CHINS and ordered Mother to participate in various services, including mental health services and drug screens.

[5] Over the ensuing three years, Mother continued to abuse alcohol and illegal drugs, including methamphetamine and fentanyl; she was inconsistent with supervised visits and, on one occasion, tried to abscond with Child; she did not comply with recommendations to treat her mental health issues; and she did not have stable employment or housing. Mother missed more than 100 drug screens because she knew she would test positive for fentanyl.

[6] On May 9, 2025, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights over Child. Seven days prior to the fact-finding hearing in August 2025, Mother had enrolled in an in-patient drug rehabilitation program. Mother appeared at the hearing via Zoom. DCS presented evidence that Mother had attempted treatment for her drug addiction many times without success; she was noncompliant with services; she did not complete a psychological evaluation; her visits with Child had been terminated thirteen months prior; and she continued to be unable to maintain stable employment or housing. Both the family case manager and the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) testified that termination of Mother's parental rights over Child was in Child's best interests.

[7] On September 5, the trial court issued an order terminating Mother's parental rights over Child. In its thorough findings and conclusions, the court described Mother's significant history of alcohol and substance abuse, her attempts at treatment, and her noncompliance with court-ordered services. The trial court concluded that the conditions that caused Child's removal from Mother's care would not be remedied; that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child's well-being; and that termination of Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interests. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[8] Indiana appellate courts have long adhered to a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental rights. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1230-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). In analyzing the trial court's decision, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the court's judgment. Id. In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Id.

[9] To determine whether a termination decision is clearly erroneous, we apply a two-tiered standard of review to the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions of law. 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; 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.” In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. If the evidence and inferences support the court's termination decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. We will accept unchallenged factual findings as true. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 614 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[10] It is well-settled that the parent-child relationship is one of society's most cherished relationships. See, e.g., In re A.G., 45 N.E.3d 471, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Indiana law thus sets a high bar to sever that relationship. Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required, in relevant part, to prove that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child's best interests. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c)(2)-(3) (2024).

[11] In addition, DCS must prove the existence of one or more of the following circumstances relevant here:

(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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d)(3)-(4). We need only discuss one of these elements raised by Mother in this appeal, namely, whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or the reasons for placement outside of Mother's home will not be remedied.

[12] Clear and convincing evidence need not establish that the continued custody of a parent is wholly inadequate for a child's very survival. Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 148. It is instead sufficient to show that the child's emotional and physical development are put at risk by the parent's custody. Id. If the court finds the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a).

[13] We also observe that Mother does not challenge the trial court's findings of fact, and, therefore, she has waived any arguments relating to the unchallenged findings. See In re S.S., 120 N.E.3d 605, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). And we accept all of the trial court's findings as true. Id.

Reasons for Removal

[14] Mother claims that DCS failed to prove that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal and continued placement outside of her home will not be remedied. Consideration of this argument involves a two-step analysis: first, identifying the conditions that led to removal, and second, determining whether there is a reasonable probability those conditions will be remedied. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642-43 (Ind. 2014). In the second step, the trial court determines a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions; in other words, the court must balance a parent's recent improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. In conducting its analysis, the trial court may also consider the reasons for the child's continued placement outside the home. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[15] Child was removed from Mother's care due to her mental health and substance abuse issues and due to Child's absence from school for fifty days. Mother has struggled with mental health issues and alcohol and substance abuse issues for many years, and this was not DCS's first contact with Mother and Child.² Throughout the CHINS and termination proceedings, Mother failed to complete services, and she continued to abuse alcohol and illegal substances. Mother's visits with Child were always supervised and, after Mother tried to abscond with Child during a visit in 2024, DCS terminated Mother's visits with Child. On the date of the termination hearing, Mother had not had Child in her care for over three years.

[16] Mother had admitted herself to an in-patient treatment program only seven days prior to the factfinding hearing, but her prior attempts at treatment had been unsuccessful. In July, September, and October of 2024, Mother tested positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine. And in January 2025, Mother tested positive for an unprescribed opioid (Tramadol), morphine, and fentanyl. Thereafter, Mother missed more than 100 drug screens because, as she testified, she was “still doing fentanyl and [she] was afraid to test and admit it.” Tr. p. 55. Further, Mother's testimony at the fact-finding hearing showed that she lacked insight into her mental health issues, which she blamed on her separation from Child.

[17] The clear and convincing evidence shows that it is reasonably probable, given Mother's habitual conduct, that she will be unable to maintain sobriety or provide stability for Child. Mother's argument on appeal focuses solely on the evidence in her favor, which amounts to an impermissible request that we reweigh the evidence.

[18] For all of these reasons, we conclude that DCS proved that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal and continued placement outside of Mother's home will not be remedied.

Best Interests

[19] Mother also argues that DCS failed to prove that termination of her parental relationship with Child is in his best interests. 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.

[20] 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. Moreover, this Court has previously held that recommendations of the family case manager and court-appointed special advocate to terminate parental rights, coupled with evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. Id.

[21] Child, who is autistic and non-verbal, has not been in Mother's care since April 2022. Mother argues that she and Child have a close bond, and she suggests that she has stable housing with her mother. But DCS presented ample evidence that Mother has been unable to maintain either stable housing or stable employment, and she has been unable to benefit from substance abuse treatment and other services offered to her. Child needs stability and permanency that Mother is not able to provide. While there is evidence that Mother and Child are bonded and love each other, that is not enough to provide Child with the home he needs and deserves, especially in light of his special needs.

[22] Moreover, the DCS family case manager and CASA agreed that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court's finding that termination of Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interests is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Conclusion

[23] Mother has not persuaded us that the trial court's order is clearly erroneous, and we affirm the court's order terminating Mother's parental rights over Child.

[24] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

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

2.   DCS was involved with Mother and Child in 2016 and in 2020, but those issues were resolved by informal adjustments.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.