N.W. (Mother), Appellant/Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee/Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] N.W. (“Mother”) and D.O. (“Father”)¹ (collectively, “Parents”) are the biological parents of B.W. (“Child”). In March of 2024, two-week-old Child was admitted to a hospital suffering from malnutrition and severe dehydration. By this time, Father was serving a lengthy prison sentence, and Mother had married her new boyfriend, M.W. (“Husband”). In addition to general neglect, it seems that Husband had intentionally underfed Child in an attempt to expel a demon from Child's body. Child was removed from Mother and Husband's care and found to be a child in need of services (“CHINS”).

[2] Over the course of the next fifteen months, Mother moved eight times, left and returned to Husband twice, failed to maintain steady employment, and demonstrated limited interest in the services offered to her. In July of 2025, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) petitioned to terminate Parents’ parental rights to Child. In September of 2025, following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Parents’ parental rights to Child. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights to Child. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 28, 2024, Child was born to Parents; Father, by this time, had been convicted of several felonies and was incarcerated with a release date of 2038 at the earliest, while Mother married Husband a few days later. On April 16, 2024, Child was admitted to the Ball Memorial Hospital in Muncie. A neighbor, whom Mother had asked for parenting help, had called 911 after seeing Child, who “looked ‘terrible’ with junk in his eyes and was a ‘bag of bones’.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 38. Child had abrasions on his face and was diagnosed with a failure to thrive; he had lost 13% of his birth weight and was lethargic and hypothermic and had bradycardia. Child was so dehydrated that fluids had be administered through his scalp, and Mother demonstrated little understanding of the basic needs of a newborn. Mother, who was “feeling confused and overwhelmed[,]” indicated that the abrasions had been the result of Child scratching himself, which the physician indicated “could not be the case.” Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 37, 38. Husband was aggressive with hospital staff and, at some point, was asked not to return.

[4] On April 19, 2024, DCS petitioned to have Child found to be a CHINS. On April 24, 2024, the juvenile court ordered Child's removal from Mother and Husband's care. On July 24, 2024, the juvenile court, following Mother's and Father's stipulations, adjudicated Child to be a CHINS. On August 9, 2024, DCS filed its predispositional report, in which it noted that Child had been placed with his maternal great-grandparents, and included the following concerning Husband:

[Husband] has been accused of yelling cuss words in [Child's] face as loud as he can. [Husband] has told [Mother] that it would be better if [Child] died, he fixed [Child's] bottles incorrectly so he would lose weight, and he has told [Mother] that [Husband] has put demons into [Child] and [Mother] and the only way to retrieve them out of their body is to have that person as near to death as he can. [Husband] alluded to the fact that he or his demon bit [Child] and that[’]s what the marks were on [Child's] body in the hospital and that [Child's] demon is causing chaos for placement and/or waiting to cause chaos for placement. [Husband] is also physically and mentally abusive to [Mother] and frequently leaves bruises on [Mother]. [DCS] has severe concerns that [Husband] is detrimental to [Child's] overall safety and well-being and poses a severe risk to [Child].

Ex. Vol. I p. 48.

[5] On August 19, 2024, the juvenile court issued a dispositional order, in which it ordered that Child remain with his placement with maternal great-grandparents and that Mother contact the DCS family case manager (“FCM”) every week, allow unannounced home visits, maintain suitable housing, secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income, refrain from using illegal controlled substances, and obey the law and participate in various services, including submitting to random drug screens, attending all scheduled visitations, and completing a parenting assessment and following all recommendations.

[6] At some point in August of 2024, Mother moved out of her home with Husband and moved in with a friend in Allen County before returning the next month to Husband. Mother soon left Husband again to live with a “friend slash boyfriend” in a warehouse for approximately two weeks before moving to Alexandria to live with an aunt in October of 2024. Tr. Vol. II p. 61. In January of 2025, Mother moved back in with Husband. After another month or two, she moved out again, moving to Anderson, occasionally living in her car or with friends in March and April of 2025. By June of 2025, Mother had moved to Marion to live with her half-sister and brother-in-law. By August of 2025, Mother had moved to Indianapolis to live with her mother.

[7] Mother's employment situation over the course of the CHINS and termination proceeding was also unstable, with her having worked for a friend “for a couple weeks[,]” at a factory, as a stripper for less than a month, and as a waitress at a diner. Tr. Vol. II pp. 64–65. Mother saw therapist Katherine Davis of Centerstone from March through July of 2025 without much success, as Mother was resistant to it.

[8] On July 18, 2025, DCS petitioned to terminate Parents’ parental rights to Child. On September 4, 2025, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing. FCM Haily Corn had been appointed to Child's case while he was still in the hospital and testified that Mother's compliance with supervised visitation was difficult due to her frequent moves and, at times, Husband's interference. FCM Corn indicated that Mother had chosen to be largely non-compliant with services despite understanding the nature of those services and that at no point during the case was it recommended that Mother have unsupervised visitation or a trial home visit with Child.

[9] Mother, who was born on June 9, 2005, testified regarding her history of mental-health issues, indicating that she had been “inpatient thirty to forty times” as a teenager and diagnosed with borderline personality disorder when she was eighteen. Tr. Vol. II p. 104. Mother acknowledged that she had self-medicated with marijuana and mushrooms and drank alcohol occasionally. Mother also admitted that her reaction to hearing that her current boyfriend had cheated on her at the beginning of July of 2025 was to cut herself.

[10] Visitation facilitator Heather Lovell from Seeds of Life began working with Mother in May of 2024. Lovell testified that it was difficult to start Mother's visitation, with Mother cancelling her first two visitations because Husband had an open arrest warrant, which they were planning to avoid by hiding in another county. When Mother did participate in visitation, Lovell observed that she did not seem to be bonded with Child, was frequently looking at her telephone, almost dropped Child once while trying to burp him, and was “very uncomfortable holding him[,]” often asking Lovell to hold him. Tr. Vol. II p. 126. Overall, Lovell rated the visitations she observed as “destructive and poor[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 126. Mother was eventually discharged from Seeds of Life for cancelling three times, with the barrier to success being her “choice to be involved with [Husband] and his legal issues[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 127.

[11] Latrice Smith of Healthy Family Advocates began working with Mother in September of 2024, providing visitation facilitation and homebased case work. Among other things, Smith worked with Mother on housing stability and household management. In the nine months that Smith worked with Mother, Mother never achieved housing stability and struggled with parenting skills, and Smith never recommended that Mother's visitation progress from supervised to unsupervised or a trial home visit.

[12] Child's court-appointed special advocate (“CASA”) Candice Kaiser served from August of 2024 to February of 2025. CASA Kaiser observed that Mother's words did not match her actions and that it did not seem like there was any stability in her living or work situations. CASA Kaiser expressed concerns regarding Mother's parenting skills, her relationship with Husband, and her lack of “any initiative to make anything happen for herself to get [Child] back.” Tr. Vol. II p. 131. CASA Kaiser opined that, at no point during her involvement in the case had it been in Child's best interests to progress to unsupervised visitation or a trial home visit. CASA Kaiser testified that Mother had not made any substantial progress in the time she had worked on the case, the reasons for which Child had been removed were not going to be remedied, DCS has a satisfactory plan for Child's placement, and termination would be in Child's best interests. Delaware County CASA Supervisor Susan Brown-Jackson, who had directly supervised CASA Kaiser, monitored the case throughout, and attended all hearings, testified that the reasons for Child's removal would not be remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child, that returning him to Parents posed a threat to his well-being, and adoption by maternal great-grandparents was in Child's best interests.

[13] Maternal great-grandmother, who, with maternal great-grandfather, has had custody of Child since April 23, 2024, testified that Child was thriving in their care, is healthy, has his own bedroom, and is meeting his milestones. Maternal great-grandmother indicated that she and her husband loved Child “very much” and were ready and willing to adopt him. Tr. Vol. II p. 142. Maternal great-grandmother indicated that returning Child to Mother would pose a threat to him and that, based on knowing Mother for her entire life, she was “afraid she would leave him with whoever would take him, so that she could go do what she wanted to do.” Tr. Vol. II p. 147.

[14] On October 13, 2025, the juvenile court terminated Parents’ parental rights to Child. The juvenile concluded, inter alia, that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child's removal or continued placement outside the home would not be remedied, there was a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child's well-being, and termination was in Child's best interests.

Discussion and Decision

[15] Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights to Child. “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). Moreover, we acknowledge that the parent-child relationship is “one of the most valued relationships in our culture.” Id. (citation omitted). Although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law allows for the termination of those rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities as parents. In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the children's interests in determining the appropriate disposition of a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship. Id. The Indiana Supreme Court has made clear that the “purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents, but to protect the children.” Egly v. Blackford Cnty. Dep't. of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1234 (Ind. 1992). “Termination of parental rights is proper where the children's emotional and physical development is threatened.” In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d at 773. The juvenile court need not wait until the children are irreversibly harmed such that their physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id.

[16] In reviewing termination proceedings on appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. In re Invol. Term. of Parental Rights of S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We only consider the evidence that supports the juvenile court's decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We recognize the juvenile court's “unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court's only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” Matter of D.P., 72 N.E.3d 976, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

[17] In order to terminate Mother's parental rights to Child, DCS was required to prove the following:

(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.

(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.

[18] Mother challenges the juvenile court's conclusions that there was a reasonable probability that (1) she would not remedy the conditions that had resulted in Child's removal or continued placement outside the home and (2) continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Child's well-being, safety, physical health, or life. We note that Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(d) is written in the disjunctive, meaning that DCS is only required to establish one of the above circumstances. See, e.g., In re J.S., 183 N.E.3d 362, 369–70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citing to a previous version of Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4), trans. denied. We choose to first address Mother's challenge to the juvenile court's conclusion that she would not remedy the conditions that had resulted in Child's removal or continued placement outside the home.

[19] In determining whether this element is met, the juvenile court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the juvenile court identifies the conditions that led to the child's removal and continued removal from the parent's home. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). Second, the juvenile court must determine whether a reasonable probability exists that the conditions justifying a child's continued placement outside the home will not be remedied. Id. In the second step, the juvenile court must judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions—balancing a parent's recent improvements against habitual conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014); K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1234. Child should not have to wait indefinitely for Mother to demonstrate the ability to provide him with proper supervision and a safe and stable home environment. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 648. We note that Mother does not challenge any of the juvenile court's findings of fact, which we therefore accept as true. See S.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 120 N.E.3d 605, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“[B]ecause neither Father nor Mother has challenged these findings on appeal, we must accept these findings as true.”).

[20] The reasons for Child's removal from Mother and Husband's care are clear enough, with their neglect (some of which seems to have been intentional) and lack of parenting skills resulting in emergency hospitalization due to malnutrition, severe dehydration, infection, and abrasions. Turning to the reasons for Child's continued removal, the juvenile court found that Mother had not complied with Child's case plan, had been minimally engaged in services, and had not enhanced her ability to parent. The juvenile court also made many more specific findings regarding these reasons:

5. [Husband] was the named Respondent in numerous protective order cases for allegations of domestic violence against Mother and with other romantic partners, both before and during his marriage to Mother (Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33,36 and 39). [Husband] also had criminal convictions for domestic violence offenses against other romantic partners and pending domestic violence charges against Mother. (Exhibits 31, 34, 35, 37 and 38).

6. Mother was provided numerous resources at the hospital when [Child] was hospitalized for malnourishment and dehydration. [Husband] was aggressive with hospital staff. Mother demonstrated little understanding of the basic needs of a newborn despite assistance from the hospital staff and Social Worker Brittney Corn (Exhibit 46). The child was so dehydrated at hospital admission, that the pic line had to be administered through the child's scalp (Exhibit 47).

7. DCS made several service referrals for Mother to assist her in reunification including therapy at Centerstone. Mother participated in therapy virtually with [Davis] from March 12, 2025 through July 8, 2025 (Exhibit 40).

[****]

9. Mother never made progress in therapy and resisted therapy indicating a preference to self-medicate through alcohol, mushrooms, and marijuana. Throughout therapy, Mother reported that she was homeless; that a trooper had found her asleep in her car; that she had expenses for tattoos, wigs and acrylic nails to sustain her temporary job as a stripper; mother's hygiene was frequently poor and she reported continued unstable romantic partnerships.

Mother acknowledged, on the record, the following self-reports made to [Davis]:

3/13/2025 Has lived with co-worker and her family for over a month, has previously tried to stay with an Aunt. Claims to have been inpatient 30–40 times, and stayed in 5 facilities/hospitals ranging from a few days to weeks. Not interested in therapy, but it is court ordered. Was in a relationship with [Father for] 4 years, with [Husband] a month before son was born. Relationship with [Husband] is verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. Now in another “healthy” relationship with new boyfriend. Has strained relationship with her mother, claims she was never a mom to her. When great-gma died she often ran away, which led to mom “forcing” her to live with Dad in Illinois. Claims she is a WITCH and very spiritual. Relies on coworkers and boyfriend for transportation. Blames her lack of progress in DCS case on going back to her ex too many times.

Mother further acknowledged: 3/14/2025 Testing indicates severe depression and anxiety symptoms. Struggles to shower during the week and maintain personal hygiene, also believes she's had an eating disorder since High School barely eats one meal a day. Began using Marijuana at 14, smokes 1 to 2 times per week to relax. Drinks alcohol every weekend. Self medicates with mushrooms, prefers and finds more helpful than processing things in therapy.

3/24/2025 [Davis] attempted to reach [Mother]. [Mother] said she may move to Anderson last week [Davis] called to check in with her moving status.

3/26/2025 [Davis] identified that [Mother] has voiced [to] DCS that she does not feel confident in caring for her son by herself. Now living in Anderson, couch surfing because coworker kicked her out. [Mother] chose to continue telehealth rather than be referred out to agencies in Anderson.

4/1/2025 [Mother] sounded down and distressed, struggling to maintain stability in life. [Mother] reported being in Ft. Wayne and planning to travel back to Anderson today. [Davis] allowed session to end early because of this. [Mother] did not want to talk about trauma today. [Davis] is concerned basic needs are not met, progress will stall in addressing and processing trauma. [Mother] is not willing to go to women's shelter to meet basic needs.

4/8/2025 [Mother] does not have permanent residence, reported sleeping in her car and at friend's/coworker's homes. [Mother] reported recent court hearing where judge and DCS are giving her 90 days to find stable housing, engage more w/son, and engage in homebased case management. [Mother] sounded annoyed and tired during session. Reported being so cold last night that she called shelters and was able to find a friend to stay w/ for the night. [Mother] reports feeling stuck and is not willing to make certain sacrifices. [Mother] is defensive and resistan[t] when [Davis] attempts to work for solutions to housing.

4/16/2025 Still homeless and does not have money for apartment. State trooper found her asleep in her car. [Mother] is unwilling to do some of the tasks DCS and court want her to do as they don't work w/ her schedule.

4/25/2025 DCS still requiring her to find stable housing. [Smith] gave her homework to create a budget so she could see what she can afford for housing. Husband called and was threatening her for outstanding charges related to an apartment they shared because [Mother]’s name was also on the lease.

5/22/2025 First time [Davis] was able to physically see client in weeks. [Mother] reported she lost her job and did not share with DCS nor does she plan to. Shared that half her hair is braided, getting the rest done today, showed off her new acrylic nails. Reported she is having a self care day because today is her day off. Reported she is now working at a strip club in Anderson and has worked there 5 days so far. [Mother] reported she was fired [from her previous job, apparently,] for time theft along with her boyfriend. [Mother] shared experiences from starting at the strip club. She reported a lot of the girls drink a lot and use substances.

5/27/2025 [Mother] was in the passenger seat of her brother in-law's car helping him move in Marion County. Their were multiple people in the car. [Mother]’s connection kept cutting out and it was hard for [Davis] to hear. [Mother] was also talking to other people in the car. [Davis] is having trouble holding full sessions and progressing as client is always doing something else and is distracted in some way. [Mother] reports she will be moving in with her brother in-law for the time being to save up for a place.

5/30/2025 Now staying at her brother in-law's house. [Mother] went and saw [Father] in prison “the other day”. [Mother] was angry about her recent visit with [Father]. She said he finally admitted to her that he purposely bought child porn. [Mother] does plan to see [Father] “one more time”. [Mother] has kept some sort of relationship with [Father] and has gone to see him as well as talks to him on the phone.

6/3/2025 New wig, new tattoo, and has not been going to work except one day.

6/9/2025 [Mother] did her session laying down in bed. [Mother] reported she has had trouble letting go of feeling and contact with [Father] while he's been in prison. [Mother] reported she has set boundaries with [Father] and will no longer answer his phone calls or allow him to talk to their son during her visits.

6/25/2025 [Mother] was 20 minutes late. Reports fighting with boyfriend and sister a lot. Boyfriend has become more controlling. [Mother] reported hanging out with members of a biker gang who are known for criminal activities. [Mother] admitted to [Davis] that she often puts herself in dangerous and unsafe situations without realizing it until it is too late. Reports that she feels boyfriend “saved” her from her husband and feels like she needs to be “saved”.

7/1/2025 Currently lives in Marion, IN. Has been frequently arguing with boyfriend. [Mother] appeared unkept and disheveled, unbrushed hair. [Mother] reported that she found out that her boyfriend has been cheating on her with his ex-girlfriend for the last couple months. She reported that she physically abused him after finding out. She also reported that she cut her legs superficially that day she found out.

7/8/2025 [Mother] appeared to have recently woken up, hair not brushed. She appeared to sitting on a couch or bed. [Mother] does sleep on the couch at her sister's house, this has become a permanent address for her at this time. [Mother] reported recently finding out that her boyfriend possibly has a 4 year old son. [Mother] reported that she got into a physical altercation with her boyfriend's ex that he had been cheating on her with.

10. At the commencement of the case, Heather Lovell of Seeds of Life attempted to provide supervised visitation services. Mother's service was ultimately closed for lack of compliance after Mother indicating that she was hiding out with her husband to evade arrest and then she wished to be available upon his release from jail in May 2024 (Exhibit 41).

11. Latrice Smith, of Health Family Advocates, provided both Home Based Case Work and supervised visitation for Mother for approximately 9 months. Latrice Smith never recommended that Mother progress her visits from unsupervised visitation due to her inability to grasp basic parenting skills and lack of progress (Exhibit 44,45).

Order pp. 4–7.

[21] As mentioned, Mother does not challenge any of the juvenile court's findings, and we have little hesitation in concluding that its comprehensive findings are more than enough to support its finding that Mother is unlikely to remedy the conditions that have led to Child's continued placement outside her home. The record easily supports a conclusion that Mother is either unwilling or unable to address any of her major issues, including housing and employment instability, substance abuse, untreated mental illness, and poor relationship choices. Mother's general lack of interest in fully engaging in the services provided to her supports the juvenile court's conclusion that the reasons for Child's continued placement outside of Mother's home would not likely be remedied.

[22] Mother's primary argument on appeal is to point to evidence that she had, in fact, made some progress in achieving housing stability and her ability to parent Child but had been impeded by circumstances, primarily her alleged severe mental illness and DCS indifference to her case. This evidence, however, does not support the juvenile court's judgment, and we will not consider it. See, e.g., In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 879. The juvenile court was in the best position to evaluate evidence regarding Mother's housing situation and mental health and the adequacy of DCS's attempts to assist Mother, and we will not second-guess its determinations. In the end, Mother's lengthy arguments amount to nothing more than requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Matter of Eq.W. 124 N.E.3d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2019).²

[23] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Father, whose parental rights to Child were also terminated in this proceeding, does not participate in this appeal.

2.   Because we affirm the juvenile court's conclusion that the reasons for Child's continued removal from Parent's care are not likely to be remedied, we need not address Mother's argument that the trial court erred in concluding 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 Child.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.