A.T., Appellant-Respondent v. M.T. and D.T., Appellees-Petitioners (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] A.T. (“Mother”), pro se, appeals the trial court's order granting M.T. and D.T.’s (collectively, “Adoptive Parents”) petition to adopt Mother's minor child, H.T. (“Child”).¹ Mother raises numerous issues for our review, which we revise and restate as whether the court clearly erred when it granted Adoptive Parents’ petition. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to Child on November 6, 2020. Thereafter, Mother and Child resided with Adoptive Parents, who are Mother's parents. On June 23, 2022, Adoptive Parents filed a petition to establish a guardianship over Child. Following a hearing at which Mother agreed to the guardianship, the court granted the petition on July 21. In its order, the court outlined five conditions that Mother was required to meet in order to terminate or modify the guardianship: completing a parenting class, completing an anger management class, obtaining gainful employment, residing independently, and showing compliance with prescription medication.

[3] In March 2023, Adoptive Parents “kicked [Mother] out of the house.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 110. Mother lived “on the streets” and in her car for several months before residing in various apartments. Id. Then, in November, Mother filed a motion for parenting time. The court granted that motion on December 12. However, Mother did not visit with Child until July 11, 2024. After “two or three” visits with Child, Mother stopped attending because she “couldn't afford it.” Id. at 108.

[4] On October 11, 2024, Adoptive Parents filed a petition to adopt Child. Mother thereafter filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The trial court held a multi-day fact-finding hearing on both petitions. During the hearing, Mother admitted that Adoptive Parents had provided for all of Child's financial and medical needs. And, during the last day of the hearing, Mother admitted that, since the first date of hearing, she had resided in multiple apartments.

[5] On September 23, 2025, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions thereon regarding Mother's petition to terminate the guardianship. In particular, the court found as follows:

21. The [Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”)] found from her investigation, experiences and research that Mother's mental illnesses do not go away on their own.

22. The GAL noted after 2-3 supervised parenting time sessions, Kid's Voice parenting time supervisors found there seemed to be underlying mental health concerns with Mother.

* * *

24. The GAL testified Mother has not shown stability, has been deceptive and has not sought information available to her regarding the child although being very resourceful.

25. The GAL is concerned with Mother's selection of an apartment by a major interstate with child having elopement issues.

26. The GAL believes the child is not safe in Mother's unsupervised care.

27. Mother does not have stability in employment or housing having testified that she has had several different jobs and lived in several different places just in 2025.

28. Mother testified she has completed a parenting class, anger control class and has had ongoing, daily compliance with prescribed medication, but her testimony was not supported by any documentation.

29. The GAL found Co-Guardians to be the only stable, responsible caregivers in the child's life.

Appellees’ App. Vol. 2 at 5-6. Accordingly, the court denied Mother's request to terminate the guardianship.

[6] The next day, the court issued its findings and conclusions as to Adoptive Parents’ petition to adopt Child. In relevant part, the court found:

18. [Adoptive Parents] have financial resources to financially support the child.

19. The child has special needs which have resulted in constant and continu[ous] medical appointments and intervention including, but not limited to, occupational, swallowing, speech, physical and mental health therapy, swallow studies, ENT care, GI, feeding therapy (due to choking and cessation of breathing) and currently, full-time therapy at ABA Therapy, Monday through Friday from 8:30am to 4:30pm.

20. Petitioner, [D.T.], is not employed outside the home and able to care for the child's special needs, including scheduling and transportation to and from medical appointment[s], therapies and educational needs.

* * *

22. Since the child's birth to date, Petitioner, [D.T.], has fed, diapered, bathed, clothed, played with, coddled, talked to and cared for all the child's needs.

* * *

31. Mother receives $731.00 monthly in social security benefits, received a tax refund of $4,443.00 and a $5,000 settlement for a workmen's compensation injury, but did not use the money to visit with the child at Kid's Voice.

32. Mother has had several job changes since March 2023 when she was evicted from [Adoptive Parents’] home. She has been working to better her mental health, living situation, and job retention. She currently has a job at Jett's Pizza, and testified this employment allows her to have an apartment and live independently.

33. Co-Guardians testified Mother made only token efforts to support, see or communicate with the child for the past two (2) years.

* * *

38. On October 30, 2024, Petitioner, [D.T.], obtained a no contact order against Mother due to threats of violence. The no contact order is valid until October 20, 2026.

39. There is currently a Court order in the guardianship allowing Mother supervised parenting time. Mother has not requested or scheduled any supervised parenting time with the child for more than one (1) year despite the financial means to do so.

40. The child will be five (5) years old on November 6, 2025, and has visited with Mother only five (5) times since March 2023.

41. Since the child's birth, [Adoptive Parents] have exclusively financially supported and provided the child a stable home.

42. The child has been diagnosed at Riley Children's Hospital with autism with elopement issues. Due to the child's autism elopement diagnosis, Petitioner [M.T.] built a privacy fence around the backyard of their home for the child's safety.

43. The Guardian Ad Litem found during investigation that Mother has threatened suicide on more than one occasion, most recently November 20, 2023, January 2024 and February 2024.

* * *

45. Mother was convicted of forgery in 2019 and 2020.

46. Mother plead[ed] guilty to battery causing injury charges in 2019.

47. Mother signed a plea agreement in 2024 wherein part of the agreement was the theft charges would be dismissed.

48. Petitioner, [D.T.], testified she has been physically harmed by Mother.

49. Mother does not have stability in housing. Mother lived with [Adoptive Parents] and the child until March 2023. At that time, Mother became homeless after [Adoptive Parents] evicted her from their home (See Cause No. 32D05-2303-EV-000325). Mother lived on the street and in homeless shelters until she got an apartment in January 2025. Between January 2025 and the last hearing on this matter, Mother lived in three (3) differen[t] apartment complexes.

* * *

56. The testimony and documentary exhibits, summarized in [Adoptive Parents’] Exhibit 34[,] show[ ] Mother has had, or alleged to have had, twelve (12) jobs from October 28, 2022, to date.

* * *

59. The GAL found [Adoptive Parents] to be the only stable, responsible caregivers in the child's life.

60. The GAL has no safety concerns for the child in [Adoptive Parents’] continued care and custody.

61. The GAL recommends the [Adoptive Parents’] adoption be granted.

Id. at 10-16. The court also reiterated several of the findings it had made in its order regarding the guardianship.

[7] Based on those findings, the court concluded:

6. There is clear and convincing evidence Mother did not communicate or have significant contacts with the child since July 2024. Mother has had the right pursuant to a court order to physically visit with the child since December 12, 2023. Mother chose Kid's Voice to be the supervising facility. Mother had three (3) visits with the child the summer of 2024. Thereafter, Mother has made no effort to have visitation with the child. The Court does not overlook the fact that Mother was cut off from phone contact by [Adoptive Parents] and the later obtained protective order. However, Mother could have still had weekly visits with the child at Kid's Voice and has failed to do so. Mother has continuously had monthly benefits through social security for the last year and income from employment since January 2025, none of which was used to pay the fees charged by Kid's Voice to see her daughter.

7. There is clear and convincing evidence Mother did not financially support the child during the child's life. Mother and child lived with [Adoptive Parents] from the child's birth until March 2023. During that time, Mother did not work, and [Adoptive Parents] paid for food, clothing and other needs for both Mother and the child. After Mother was evicted, the child remained with [Adoptive Parents] where they have continued to the day of the last hearing to provide full financial support for the child. Mother and [Adoptive Parents] disagree as to whether Mother attempted to help with supplies for the child. Either way, it is clear until January 2025, Mother only had her social security benefits to live on and [has] not had sufficient means to pay child support or offer much, if any, financial help.

8. There is clear and convincing evidence Mother is unfit to parent the child. Indiana Courts have found the term “unfit” to mean “unsuitable”. Factors to be considered when determining this issue include, but are not limited to, a parent's substance abuse, mental health, willingness to follow recommended treatment, lack of insight, instability in housing and employment, criminal history and ability to care for a child's special needs. As can be seen in the facts as stated in this order, the Court finds Mother has been, and continues to be, unfit to parent the child.

9. Having found the [Adoptive Parents] have proven by clear and convincing evidence Mother has not had sufficient significant contacts with the child and is and would continue to be an unfit parent to the child, it is hereby found Mother's consent is not required and the child's best interests are served by dispensing with Mother's consent pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(11).

Id. at 17-18.

[8] The trial court then entered its decree of adoption. In its order, the trial court again found that Mother's consent to the adoption was not required because “she has been found to be unfit[.]” Id. at 20. The court also found that adoption was in Child's best interests. As such, the court granted Adoptive Parents’ petition to adopt Child. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] We first note that Mother proceeds pro se. “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citation omitted). “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal.” Id. at 984.

[10] Mother contends that the court clearly erred when it granted Adoptive Parents’ petition to adopt Child. As our Supreme Court has stated:

In family law matters, we generally give considerable deference to the trial court's decision because we recognize that the trial judge is in the best position to judge the facts, determine witness credibility, “get a feel for the family dynamics,” and “get a sense of the parents and their relationship with their children.” MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938, 940 (Ind. 2005). Accordingly, when reviewing an adoption case, we presume that the trial court's decision is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting this presumption. In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 972-73 (Ind. 2014).

The trial court's findings and judgment will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. In re Paternity of K.I., 903 N.E.2d 453, 457 (Ind. 2009). “A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment.” Id. We will not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 973. Rather, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Id.

E.B.F. v. D.F., 93 N.E.3d 759, 762 (Ind. 2018).

[11] Issues 1-5, 7-8, 12. On appeal, Mother asserts that the court's order granting the adoption is erroneous for fifteen reasons. Initially, Mother argues that the court erred when it relied on: her employment history (issue one), her income (issue two), her unstable housing (issue three), the GAL report (issue four), Child's alleged autism (issue five), her limited contact with Child (issue seven), various texts and emails (issue eight), and unsubstantiated Indiana Department of Child Services allegations (issue twelve). However, we hold that Mother has waived each of those purported issues.

[12] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides that the argument section of an appellant's brief “must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” Here, while Mother makes bald assertions that the court improperly relied on certain factors, Mother has not directed us to any finding of fact that she contends is unsupported by the evidence. Further, Mother provides only a general citation to a case or an evidence rule in each purported issue but does not explain how those authorities support her position. As a result of her failure to comply with the appellate rules, Mother has waived those eight issues. We therefore turn to the remaining issues.

[13] Issue Six. Mother next contends that the GAL “failed to act in a timely and effective manner,” which resulted in “a significant delay in visitation and disruption of [Mother's] relationship with her child.” Appellant's Br. at 19. But Mother disregards the fact that her visits with Child were through Kid's Voice, not through the GAL. And Mother does not direct us to any place in the record to demonstrate that it was the GAL's responsibility instead of Mother's to schedule the visits. In any event, Mother has neither explained how the GAL caused any delay nor made any argument to explain that the delays were not reasonable. Mother has not demonstrated that any delay by the GAL resulted in any harm to Mother.²

[14] Issue Nine. Mother also asserts that she “testified without counsel and was subject to rapid, leading questioning that required ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses[.]” Id. at 25. She maintains that, because she was “restricted to truncated answers, she was unable to explain critical context[.]” Id. In essence, Mother's argument is a claim that she was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Mother is incorrect. For the two days of the hearing that Mother provided in her record on appeal, she was represented by counsel.³ See Tr. Vol. 2 at 85, 161. And Mother underwent extensive direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. Thus, while she may have been limited in her responses on cross examination, her attorney had the opportunity to ask her clarifying questions and to allow her to provide context on redirect. As such, Mother was not denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

[15] Issue Ten. Mother next argues that she “submitted over 29 exhibits demonstrating stability, compliance, and parental fitness” to the trial court but that the “Record on Appeal fails to meaningfully include or reflect those exhibits.” Appellant's Br. at 26. And she contends that the record “fails to indicate whether this evidence was admitted, considered, or ruled upon” by the trial court. Id. Mother's argument appears to be in reference to her Exhibit R, which contained “over 29 exhibits[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 93. Mother's attorney moved to admit Exhibit R. But, after the parties agreed to “stipulate as to what it included,” Mother's attorney agreed to withdraw that exhibit. Id. at 96. Thus, the record demonstrates that the exhibit was never admitted but that the court was aware of it and its contents following an agreement by the parties. Mother has not shown reversible error on this issue.

[16] Issue Eleven. Mother also claims that the record on appeal “is materially incomplete and one-sided” because evidence demonstrating her fitness “is absent[.]” Appellant's Br. at 27. To the extent Mother's argument concerns the absence of her Exhibit R from the record, as outlined above, her attorney withdrew that exhibit, and the exhibit was never admitted by the trial court. To the extent Mother is referring to other evidence, she has not directed us to any missing evidence or the location in the transcript where she believes that evidence was admitted by the trial court. Alternatively, Mother argues that the record on appeal contains “extensive materials” submitted by Adoptive Parents that “were never introduced, discussed or admitted during” the hearing. Id. But, again, Mother does not direct us to any document that is included in the exhibit volume that was not discussed at trial. If Mother is referencing Adoptive Parents’ Exhibit 34, which was a summary of Mother's employment history, the court initially did not admit that exhibit but ultimately did. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 185. Thus, that exhibit was a proper part of the record on appeal. Mother has not demonstrated any error on this issue.

[17] Issues Thirteen and Fourteen. Additionally, Mother contends that the trial court structured the temporary guardianship “as a reunification-based arrangement” contingent on her completion of treatment and services and that the “record demonstrates that [she] fulfilled those requirements[.]” Appellant's Br. at 29. And she argues that her compliance “was not isolated or minimal” but that it “was sustained, documented, and consistent” with the court's stated requirements for reunification. Id. at 31. As such, she maintains that the court was required to terminate the guardianship. But Mother's arguments are based entirely on her own self-serving testimony, which the court was not required to accept as true. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004). And, as the trial court noted, “[n]o records or other documentation to support Mother's testimony was offered.” Appellees’ App. Vol. 2 at 15. Mother has not met her burden to demonstrate that the trial court erred when it determined that she had not completed the requirements for reunification.

[18] Issue Fifteen. Finally, Mother asserts that, following her objection to the adoption, the court “was required to conduct a contested-adoption analysis, apply heightened statutory safeguards, and make specific findings before any adoption could lawfully proceed.” Appellant's Br. at 33. That is exactly what occurred here. The trial court treated the adoption petition as contested, held a multi-day fact-finding hearing at which Mother was present and represented by counsel, issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon determining that Mother's consent was not required,⁴ and granted the adoption. Mother has not shown any error on this issue.

Conclusion

[19] The trial court did not err when it granted Adoptive Parents’ petition to adopt Child. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Paternity has never been established for Child.

2.   To the extent Mother contends that her lack of contact with Child was caused by her inability to afford visits, Mother similarly disregards the fact that she had income from Social Security, a settlement, a tax refund, and her employment that she could have used to pay for the service.

3.   The final fact-finding hearing occurred over three days: May 27, June 27, and August 13, 2025. When preparing her record on appeal, Mother specifically elected to not request the transcript for May 27. See Notice of Transcript Request and Clarification of Payment Arrangements at 2.

4.   Mother does not challenge the court's determination that her consent was not required.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.