IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.C. (Minor Child); (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] W.C. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to K.C. (“Child”). Father contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights. We disagree and affirm.

Issue

[2] Father raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights.

Facts

[3] Child was born in December 2022 to Father and T.G. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”).¹ In June 2024, Deputy John Jones of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department responded to a report that the family was living in a tent. Father was arrested based on an outstanding warrant, and, while Deputy Jones spoke to Father, Father mentioned that Child had not eaten in two days. Deputy Jones observed Child crawling in the weeds on the edge of the woods.

[4] The situation was reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”), and on June 28, 2024, DCS, Parents, and maternal grandmother signed an informal adjustment plan. This plan arranged for Child to live with maternal grandmother while Mother and Father lived at Anchor House, an emergency housing charity. Pursuant to this agreement, DCS provided home-based case management.

[5] Child lived with maternal grandmother at a home owned by maternal great-grandmother. On August 15, 2024, DCS received notice that maternal grandmother, who was still caring for Child, had been evicted. A follow-up report to DCS in August alleged homelessness and substance abuse.² On August 16, 2024, the trial court found that it was in Child's best interests to be removed from the home.

[6] On August 15, 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging that Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1. On November 20, 2024, the trial court found Child to be a CHINS and granted wardship to DCS pursuant to a dispositional decree. The dispositional decree ordered Father, in part, to abstain from controlled substances; submit to random drug screens; participate in substance use disorder treatment assessments, intensive outpatient recovery treatments, and home-based case management; and attend all scheduled visitations with Child.

[7] Father struggled with the plan for reunification. Father failed to call to set up drug screens. When he took tests administered by the Family Case Manager (“FCM”), Father tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Father reported to a housing services provider that the family could live with paternal grandfather in Texas, but, when DCS called to confirm, paternal grandfather did not confirm the report. Parents also indicated they were not interested in obtaining long-term housing in Indiana. Father had at least two jobs throughout the process, but his employment ended due to concerns about Father's hygiene.

[8] Additionally, Parents disengaged from parenting education services; they were engaged at the beginning of the program but disengaged within three or four months, around April 2025. After this first disengagement, Parents’ attendance with the housing and parenting education service provider was inconsistent. When supervised visits had to be rescheduled due to Parents’ work schedules, Father decided not to continue his weekday visits because Mother could not attend.

[9] On October 10, 2025, DCS filed a petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights to Child. DCS alleged 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.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8.

[10] At the time of the fact-finding hearing on January 7, 2026, Child had been in DCS's care for seventeen months. Parents still had not secured stable housing ³ and tested positive for controlled substances on their most recent screening.⁴ Father's participation in services had been inconsistent; he repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC; and he missed numerous visits with Child. The Court Appointed Special Advocate and FCM testified that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in Child's best interests.

[11] On January 30, 2026, the trial court granted the petition to terminate parental rights and issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon. The findings included that there was a satisfactory plan for the care of Child: adoption. The trial court also found that termination of parental rights was in Child's best interests. Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Father challenges the termination of his parental rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional rights of parents to establish a home and raise their children. In re K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). “[A] parent's interest in the upbringing of [his or her] child is ‘perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e] [c]ourt[s].’ ” Id. (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). We recognize that parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child's best interests when determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. Id.; see also In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019) (“Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children—but this right is not absolute.”). “When parents are unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities, their parental rights may be terminated.” Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 45-46.

[13] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(c), the trial court “shall enter findings of fact that support the entry of the conclusions required by subsections (a) and (b)” when granting a petition to terminate parental rights.⁵ Here, the trial court did enter findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting DCS's petition to terminate Father's parental rights. We affirm a trial court's termination of parental rights decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 45. A termination of parental rights decision is clearly erroneous when the trial court's findings of fact do not support its legal conclusions, or when the legal conclusions do not support the ultimate decision. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Id.

[14] The requirements for the termination of parental rights are codified by statute. Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required to allege and prove:

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c). Subsection (d) requires the existence of one or more circumstances, including:

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d).⁶

[15] DCS “is required to prove that termination is appropriate by a showing of clear and convincing evidence.” In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 (Ind. 2016) (citing In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009)). If the trial court finds that the allegations in the termination petition are true, it “shall” terminate the parent-child relationship and enter findings supporting its conclusions. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8.

[16] Father concedes that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability the reasons for removal will not be remedied. Father, however, challenges DCS's plan for Child and the trial court's finding that termination of parental rights was in Child's best interests.

A. Plan for the Care and Treatment of Child

[17] Father appears to argue that the evidence supporting the plan for care and treatment of Child was insufficient. Indiana courts have held that for a plan to be “ ‘satisfactory’ ” for the purposes of the termination statute, it “ ‘need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent-child relationship is terminated.’ ” In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Fam. and Child., 861 N.E.2d 366, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied. “A DCS plan [of adoption] is satisfactory if the plan is to attempt to find suitable parents to adopt the children․ [T]here need not be a guarantee that a suitable adoption will take place, only that DCS will attempt to find a suitable adoptive parent.” Lang, 861 N.E.2d at 375.

[18] Father argues that DCS provided insufficient evidence of a satisfactory plan for Child because the petition to terminate parental rights did not specify a plan for care; the petition only asserted that there was a “satisfactory plan.”⁷ Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7. Although the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights did not state the plan for Child, the Periodic Report in the CHINS matter, dated October 10, 2025, identifies concurrent plans—reunification and adoption. DCS filed the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights on October 10, 2025, and, accordingly, DCS abandoned reunification. Clear and convincing evidence was submitted to the trial court that DCS had a satisfactory plan for Child—adoption.

B. Child's Best Interests

[19] Father also challenges the trial court's determination that termination of his parental rights is in Child's best interests. In determining what is in the best interests of a child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49. In doing so, the trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of a parent-child relationship is proper when the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. A trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Additionally, a child's need for permanency is a “central consideration” in determining the best interests of a child. Id.

[20] Father contends that he demonstrated a commitment to improving his circumstances for Child's benefit. He argues that during the initial stages of the case, he successfully progressed through the parent education modules, he and Child shared a bond, he attempted to gain financial stability, and he was working to begin new employment at the time of the hearing. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, however, Father had failed to engage with DCS's drug screening regimen, his engagement with services was inconsistent, he failed to attend supervised visitations with Child, he had not obtained stable housing or employment, and he continued to test positive for methamphetamine.

[21] Father argues that his primary obstacle to attaining stable housing is a result of systemic barriers—a lack of low-income housing options. DCS, however, provided Father and Mother with options and aid to find low-income housing, but Parents failed to pursue these options. Under these circumstances, the trial court's finding that termination of Father's parental rights is in Child's best interests is not clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[22] The evidence supports the termination of Father's parental rights to Child. Accordingly, we affirm.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother does not participate in this appeal.

2.   At the time, DCS was concerned that Parents were using controlled substances. Father, however, did not test positive for controlled substances until October 2024. Father first tested positive for THC on October 24, 2024, for methamphetamine on February 21, 2025, and for amphetamine on September 3, 2025.

3.   At the time, Parents were living with maternal grandmother, but DCS was concerned that maternal grandmother had a history with DCS and a recent conviction for operating while intoxicated.

4.   Father tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC on October 15, 2025. This was the most recent test taken prior to the fact-finding hearing.

5.   Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8, governing termination of a parent-child relationship involving a delinquent child or CHINS, provides as follows:(a) Except as provided in section 4.5(d) of this chapter, if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.(b) If the court does not find that the allegations in the petition are true, the court shall dismiss the petition.

6.   This statute was amended effective July 1, 2025. DCS filed its petition in October 2025 under the latest version of the statute.

7.   To the extent that Father argues that this was a deficiency in the petition, this issue is waived because it is not a cogent argument. Ind. App. Rule 46(A)(8)(a)-(b).

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bradford, J., and Felix, J., concur.