T.S. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent v. Kids’ Voice of Indiana, Appellee-Guardian Ad Litem (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.S. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights as to her minor child, A.S., claiming that the evidence failed to support the trial court's findings that she was using cocaine during her pregnancy and that she continued to abuse drugs shortly before the termination hearing. Mother also argues that the termination order must be set aside because the evidence failed to establish that the conditions resulting in A.S.’s removal and continued placement outside Mother's home would not likely be remedied, and that the Department of Child Services (DCS) failed to show that termination was in A.S.’s best interest.

[2] We affirm.¹

Facts and Procedural History

[3] A.S. was born on July 20, 2023. Shortly thereafter, she was removed from Mother and Father's care on an emergency basis, following a nearly two-week stay in a hospital's neo-natal intensive care unit (NICU). Mother admitted that she was a frequent cocaine user, and it was determined that cocaine was in her system at the time of A.S.’s birth. A.S. was placed in foster care with W.D. and her family on August 1.

[4] On August 3, 2023, DCS filed a Child In Need of Services (CHINS) petition as to A.S. because of Mother's substance abuse issues. Mother admitted the allegation and the trial court adjudicated A.S. a CHINS. The trial court ordered Mother to undergo a parenting assessment and complete home-based therapy. Mother was also ordered to submit to a substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations and undergo random drug screenings. The trial court warned Mother that “any request for drug screen[ing] that is not completed in a timely manner will result in a positive result indication.” Exhibit Vol. I at 16.

[5] The trial court appointed Alane Singleton as Guardian ad Litem (GAL), whereupon she contacted Mother, A.S.’s foster family, and service providers, and scheduled Mother's supervised visits with A.S. While Mother was to have supervised visits with A.S. three times per week, she missed almost half of them. And at some point, A.S. became distressed after the visits and she would cry, scream, and cling to W.D. Singleton observed A.S.’s need for services due to developmental delays, and she subsequently recommended that A.S. should not be placed with Mother because of her failure to comply with court-ordered family and parenting services.

[6] On August 1, 2024, the trial court ordered A.S.’s permanency plan changed from reunification to adoption, and A.S. was placed with her current foster Mother, J.F. As A.S. was developmentally delayed, J.F. obtained speech therapy sessions for her. On August 9, 2024, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights as to A.S.

[7] Mother's DCS caseworker recommended that A.S. remain in foster care because of Mother's inconsistency with supervised visits and her lack of involvement with A.S. during much of the parenting time sessions. Between August 1, 2024, and May 30, 2025, Mother attended only half of the fifty scheduled supervised visits with A.S. Mother completely stopped visiting with A.S. for a while and offered no excuses for that missed time.

[8] At one point, it was established that Mother's homebased caseworker closed her file after Mother stopped contacting her. Around that same time, a DCS counselor assessed Mother regarding drug rehabilitation and substance use classes. Mother told the counselor that she had not used any illegal drugs for a year. As a result, Mother was released to outpatient therapy. Although the counselor later learned Mother had recently tested positive for cocaine, Mother was not referred to inpatient treatment because she had already been assigned to outpatient care.

[9] As an outpatient, Mother was required to attend classes and AA and NA meetings. Mother also had to test negative for drugs on three successive occasions. As of May 30, 2025, Mother had attended 17 of the 24 group therapy sessions with one excused and two unexcused absences. Mother never informed her counselor whether she attended AA or NA meetings.

[10] Jessica Frye became Mother's DCS family case manager (FCM) in March 2025. At some point, FCM Frye informed Mother that she had tested positive for cocaine in March and April. Mother's criminal history also concerned FCM Frye, as Mother was convicted of theft in May 2024. Mother was again arrested and charged with another theft in February 2025.

[11] At the termination hearings that were conducted on May 1 and May 30, 2025, the evidence demonstrated that Mother periodically stayed with her mother and lacked permanent stable housing. It was also established that Mother's previous romantic partner had shot her in July 2024, and that she was hospitalized for nearly a month as a result. Mother did not visit with A.S. for nearly two months following that incident.

[12] Mother admitted that she had a drug problem and the evidence showed that she never completed court-ordered substance abuse treatment. It was further established that Mother was using illegal drugs as recently as two weeks prior to the termination hearings in light of her positive tests for cocaine.

[13] The evidence demonstrated that A.S. had bonded with J.F. and her family and that they loved and cared for A.S. FCM Frye did not recommend A.S.’s placement with Mother because of the missed supervised visits, the failed drug screens, and the noncompletion of court-ordered services.

[14] Following the hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights as to A.S. The termination order entered on September 26, 2025, provided in part that

17. Mother was not compliant with the random drug screen orders of the court and had multiple referrals. Mother did not provide drug screens from October 2023 to January 2025․

18. Then from 2/17/2025 through 4/1/2025, Mother had an open referral ․ to submit to random drug screens. The referral required Mother to call a number every weekday, and not on Saturday and Sunday, to see if she was required to drug screen that day. Accordingly, in this time, she should have called ․ 32 times and instead she only called 9 times. As a result of failing to call each weekday, she failed to submit to 5 of 7 drug screens. She submitted to 2 random drug screens from 2/17/2025 – 4/1/2025. One of which, the results were normal and the other positive for cocaine.

․

20. Mother also admitted to using cocaine one day prior to the first evidentiary hearing held on May 1, 2025, and to using cocaine again two weeks before the second evidentiary hearing held May 30, 2025.

․

23. Mother is engaged in intensive outpatient therapy for substance abuse at Firefly. Dollie Thompson is Mother's intensive outpatient therapist. To be compliant with Ms. Thompson's treatment recommendations and the program, Mother must attend [a] support group 3 times weekly for 24 weeks and attend outside sessions like NA or AA and show record of attendance.

24. Mother is attending support group 3 times weekly each time for 3 hours. Mother has attended 17 of 24 group sessions.

25. The evidence is lacking to show that [Mother] attended outside sessions like NA or AA.

26. Patients must provide 3 consecutive negative drug screens before moving to the aftercare program. The aftercare program is an 8-week program.

27. On or near February 18, 2025, Mother was charged with Theft and Theft with a prior conviction of Theft or Conversion (from May 2024). She was initially incarcerated briefly on these charges and the case is pending.

28. Mother has not completed a substance abuse treatment program.

29. Faith Harrington served as a homebased case manager for Mother. Her agency was referred to provide homebased case work like housing and employment. She first spoke with Mother on February 4, 2025. The referral was open for 16 days. Ms. Harrington closed the referral having not heard back from Mother.

30. Sharia Stafford [is] Mother's current Home-Based Case Worker from Family and Community Partners. Mother has been inconsistent with communication and participation with the service. As part of the homebased case management service, Mother should have provided documentation to her home-based case manager to verify her employment and housing. Mother has not done so.

․

33. Mother engages in supervised parenting time. Ms. Franshelle Seals with family and community partners is Mother's Parenting time facilitator.

34. Ms. Franshelle Seals has never recommended a step-down from supervised visitation due to concerns about Mother having not demonstrated sobriety and lack of consistency in parenting times.

35. Ms. Seals received the referral to supervise parenting time about 6 months ago and the referral is for twice weekly, supervised parenting time. For the first couple of months, Mother was attending relatively consistently and then there was a period of about a month where Ms. Seals did not hear from Mother and Mother missed 8-9 visits. Mother [then] resumed her parenting time but was no[t] consistent in appearing for parenting time. In May 2025, Mother started being consistent in her parenting time schedule.

36. During the time Mother was inconsistent, she missed so many visits that she is now required to confirm by noon the day of her parenting time and is on an attendance contract due to a lack of communication and cancellations of parenting time sessions. Since being on this contract, Mother has missed parenting time.

37. Mother has never progressed past supervised parenting time at an agency.

38. The lack of consistency with Mother's parenting time has affected [A.S.] and Mother's lack of engagement has delayed permanency for [A.S.].

39. Mother was referred to numerous services, more than twice, in order to offer her a reasonable opportunity to comply with court orders to achieve reunification and the services included: Home-Based Therapy, Parenting Assessment, Home-Based Case Management, Substance Abuse Assessment, and Random Drug Screens.

40. Mother required multiple referrals for services because she was unsuccessfully discharged.

41. In July 2024, Mother was shot multiple times by a romantic partner. She was hospitalized for over a month due to the injuries she suffered.

42. Mother wants more time to complete substance abuse treatment, random drugs screens and other services, and explains how getting shot multiple times by her romantic partner took a toll on her physical and mental health, and that she could not “just get over” it like that.

43. [A.S.] had been removed from Mother's care for 11 months before she was injured and hospitalized. And in that time, Mother did not make meaningful progress or successfully complete the court ordered services. Among other things, Mother was not engaged in substance abuse treatment.

44. Home base[d] therapy services were available to Mother during this time, but she did not participate in therapy services, even when she needed mental health.

45. Some of the parenting times she has missed can be attributable to her hospitalization and aftercare physical therapy.

46. [E.S.], Maternal Grandmother stated that she had no concerns regarding Mother and had never had any concerns regarding Mother. [E.S.] said that she had completed paperwork to have [A.S.] placed in her home and that the paperwork had been given to two women but did not know what happened with the paperwork. [E.S.] said that [DCS] did come to her home but never heard from anyone as to why [A.S.] was not placed in her home. Mother had resided in her home, but she recently moved into her own residence.

․

48. [A.S.] has been in the pre-adoptive placement since August 2024. [A.S.] is in a pre-adoptive home and her physical and emotional needs are being met. She is adjusting well into the family.

49. GAL Alane Singleton believes it is in [A.S.’s] best interest for the parent-child relationship to be terminated due to Mother's inability to demonstrate sobriety. Children need permanency, and [A.S.] is in a permanent, stable home which is able and willing to adopt her.

50. GAL Alane Singleton has no safety concerns with the current placement, believing they can satisfactorily provide and attend to [A.S.’s] needs. It is in [A.S.’s] best interests to remain placed in her current placement.

51. FCM Jessica Frye has no safety concerns with the current placement, believing it is in [A.S.’s] best interest to remain placed in her current placement.

52. [A.S.] has been removed from her Mother's care and under the supervision of DCS since her initial removal from Mother on or about August 1, 2023.

53. Since [A.S.’s] removal, she has been placed in foster care and never returned to the care of Mother.

54. The CHINS Court repeatedly found that DCS has made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify [A.S.] to Mother.

Based on the foregoing, the Court now reaches the following Conclusions of Law:

․

8. [A.S.] was removed from Mother's care because of substance abuse and minor child was born positive for an illegal substance, cocaine.

9. As of the termination hearing, [Mother] had not completed the court ordered DCS services and was still using cocaine and her parenting time was supervised.

10. Due to [Mother's] history of substance abuse, recent use of illegal substances, as well as her failure to complete the court ordered services provided by DCS, the Court finds that DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Child's removal and for continued placement outside [Mother's] home will not be remedied.

․

12. [FCM] Jessica Frye and [the GAL] believe the termination of parental rights is in [A.S.’s] best interests. [Mother] has not remedied her drug addiction or completed services or shown any willingness to work toward reunification. The DCS has made efforts to provide necessary services to the Mother. [A.S.] needs permanency and stability, which [Mother] has not provided and is not poised to provide. The Guardian ad Litem agrees with [FCM's] recommendation for termination.

13. As explained above, there is clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which led to continued removal of [A.S.] from the care of the parents is unlikely to be remedied. Coupled with the recommendation from the FCM and GAL, there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that termination is in [A.S.’s] best interests. The Court finds that DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship is in [A.S.’s] best interests.

․

15. DCS's plan for [A.S.], should termination occur, is that [A.S.] be adopted by the current placement. The placement is meeting [A.S.’s] needs and has a bond with [A.S.].

16. The Court finds that DCS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that adoption of [A.S.] by the pre-adoptive placement is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of [A.S.].

[15] Mother now appeals.

Standard of Review

[16] 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. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Where, as here, a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions, our review 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 accept any unchallenged findings as true. See Matter of To.R., 177 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

Discussion and Decision

[17] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). A parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” Id. However, parental rights “are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child's interests in determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights.” Id. If parents are “unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities,” termination of parental rights is appropriate. Id. We recognize that termination of a parent-child relationship is “an extreme measure and should only be utilized as a last resort when all other reasonable efforts to protect the integrity of the natural relationship between parent and child have failed.” K.E. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641, 646 (Ind. 2015).

[18] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required to allege and prove, among other things: the existence of one 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(d).² In addition, DCS must allege and prove:

(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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c). 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. 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009).

I. Mother's Drug Use

[19] Mother attacks several of the trial court's findings and conclusions, claiming that the evidence failed to support the determination that she was using illegal substances during her pregnancy with A.S., that A.S. had cocaine in her system at birth, and that she continued to use drugs shortly before the termination hearing. Mother further contends that the termination order must be set aside because the evidence failed to support the trial court's conclusion that she had failed to make efforts toward reunification with A.S.

[20] Mother first challenges the trial court's conclusion that “[A.S.] was removed from Mother's care because of substance abuse and minor child was born positive for an illegal substance, cocaine.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 163. DCS's evidence supports this determination, however, as Mother admitted to using cocaine on a weekly basis when she learned that she was pregnant in January 2023, and admitted that she continued using cocaine until A.S.’s birth. It therefore follows that A.S. would be born positive for cocaine in light of Mother's admission that she was using at that time. Moreover, the GAL learned that [A.S.] had been exposed to drugs and that the exposure led to her lengthy stay in the NICU. Thus, DCS's evidence that A.S. was removed from Mother's care because of Mother's substance abuse and that A.S. was exposed to cocaine supports the trial court's conclusion.

[21] In finding of fact twenty, the trial court found that Mother had used illegal substances just prior to the termination hearing. DCS presented evidence that Mother tested positive for cocaine in March 2025 and one day before the termination hearing commenced. Although Mother contends that she never admitted to using illegal substances for several weeks between the first and second termination hearings, the trial court found that Mother “was still using cocaine” and that she had recently used an illegal substance. Id. at 163. DCS's evidence supports that finding in light of Mother's admission to using cocaine in 2025, and the positive drug screens confirm that she was still using illegal substances just prior to the termination hearing.

[22] Finally, Mother challenges the trial court's conclusion that she showed no “willingness to work toward reunification.” Id. at 164. The trial court ordered Mother to complete (1) home-based therapy; (2) a parenting assessment and all recommendations; (3) home-based case management; (4) a substance abuse assessment; (5) and random drug screens.

[23] DCS presented evidence at the termination hearing that Mother never completed home-based therapy, did not complete substance abuse treatment or parenting assessments, and that she continually missed random drug screens. While Mother argues that she participated in substance abuse treatment and submitted to drug tests, the evidence established that Mother missed numerous screenings and treatment classes, failed drugs tests, and did not inform her caseworker as to whether she attended court-ordered NA and AA meetings.

[24] In short, DCS's evidence demonstrated Mother's unwillingness to work toward reunification with A.S., inasmuch as she failed to complete most of the court-ordered tasks that would lead to reunification. Thus, Mother's challenges to the trial court's findings and conclusions fail, and we decline to set aside the termination order on this basis.

II. Conditions that Resulted in Removal/Continued Placement

[25] Mother claims that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for A.S.’s removal or continued placement outside the home will not be remedied. Specifically, Mother argues that the termination order must be set aside because her “achievements and efforts to remedy herself for reunification demonstrate [that] the conditions which led to the removal would have been remedied with additional time.” Appellant's Brief at 9.

[26] In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to a child's removal will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 642-43. First, we examine the conditions that led to the child's placement and retention in foster care, and second, whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. at 643. In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing a parent's recent improvements against “habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.” Id.

[27] In judging fitness, the trial court may consider, among other things, a parent's lack of adequate housing and employment, failure to provide support, and prior criminal history. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The trial court may also consider a parent's response to services offered by DCS, and the reasons for a child's continued placement outside the home. Id. A pattern of unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with those providing social services, in conjunction with unchanged conditions, supports a finding that there exists no reasonable probability that the conditions will change. Id. To be sure, a parent's past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and the court does not have to wait until the child has received irreparable harm to the point of impaired physical, mental, and social growth to sever the parent-child relationship. In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

[28] When a parent fails to participate in court ordered services, the trial court takes this unwillingness as an indicator that the parent does not want to remedy the reasons for the child's removal. In re O.G., 159 N.E.3d 13, 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. And when the parent responsible for the child's care and custody is under the influence of drugs in the child's presence, the parent “essentially abandon[s] [the child] without any responsible supervision.” White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 1989).

[29] Here, Mother's substance abuse was the cause of A.S.’s initial removal from her care. As a result, the trial court ordered Mother to submit to drug screens, undergo drug assessment and counseling, and complete a home-based therapy program. Mother, however, missed drug screens to the point that the trial court warned her that “any request for drug screen[ing] that is not completed in a timely manner will result in a positive result indication.” Exhibit Vol I at 16. Mother failed to obtain and maintain sobriety, did not participate in court-ordered services, and she continued to test positive for cocaine throughout the pendency of the proceedings.

[30] The evidence also established that Mother failed to maintain consistent supervised visits with A.S. For nearly two years, Mother would periodically miss a month or more of visits with A.S., and she made no effort to strengthen her relationship with A.S. Indeed, Mother's inconsistent behavior provided no stability or permanency for A.S., and her lack of advancing toward unsupervised visits demonstrates her lack of regard for building a strong parent-child relationship with A.S. See, e.g., Matter of A.L., 273 N.E.3d 481, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (concluding that a parent's failure “to make appreciable improvement” is sufficient to show that a parent is unlikely to remedy the conditions that resulted in the child's removal).

[31] Finally, Mother's criminal history and the violence in the home support the conclusion that there is a reasonable possibility Mother will not remedy the circumstances that led to A.S.’s removal from her care. DCS staff was concerned about A.S.’s well-being if Mother's parental rights were not terminated and she was found guilty of a pending theft charge and sentenced to a period of incarceration. Mother's ongoing legal troubles do not provide A.S. with a stable home or a consistent parental figure. See, e.g., In re P.B., 199 N.E.3d 790, 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (observing that Father failed to have any consistent presence in his child's life, given his continuing legal problems and the negative effects that his incarcerations have had on his child), trans. denied.

[32] In sum, the trial court did not err in concluding that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to A.S.’s removal will not be remedied.

III. A.S.’s Best Interests

[33] Mother also challenges the trial court's conclusion that termination is in A.S.’s best interests. Mother claims that her “bond” with A.S. and her family members’ interest in caring for A.S. “weighs against termination.” Appellant's Brief at 18.

[34] In determining the best interests of a child, the trial court must examine the totality of the evidence. See In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d 158, 167-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child. Id. at 168.

[35] The need for permanency is a “central consideration” in determining the child's best interests. Id. The recommendation by both the 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 child's best interests. L.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[36] Here, the DCS case manager and GAL testified that terminating Mother's rights is in A.S.’s best interests because Mother failed to achieve sobriety, was inconsistent with attending supervised visits, and did not consistently participate in court-ordered services. As discussed above, Mother's issues with substance abuse have not been remedied and A.S. is at risk if she is returned to Mother's care. See In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d at 1006 (finding that termination of parental rights was in a child's best interests where the parents did not address their substance-abuse issues or complete recommended services).

[37] The evidence showed that A.S. was thriving in foster care and has bonded with that family. Moreover, A.S. has undergone speech therapy, and she has received help with her learning disabilities while in foster care. Although Mother contends that other family members might be willing to care for A.S., she has not presented any evidence establishing that there was a plan for A.S.’s well-being or how family members could meet A.S.’s needs.

[38] In sum, the totality of the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in A.S.’s best interests. The trial court's termination order is not clearly erroneous.

[39] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   P.S. (Father) consented to A.S.’s adoption and is not a party to this appeal. We thus confine our discussion to the circumstances that relate to Mother.

2.   This statute was amended effective March 11, 2024. DCS filed its petition in August 2024, under the new version of the statute. The statute was also later amended effective July 1, 2025, but we apply the version in effect at the time DCS filed the petition.

Altice, Judge.

Brown, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.