IN RE: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.C. III (Father) and J.C. IV and N.C. (Minor Children) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.C. III (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, J.C. IV and N.C. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and K.C. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) have two children together: J.C. IV, born in September 2023, and N.C., born in September 2024. Mother, whose rights were also terminated and who is currently incarcerated, does not participate in this appeal.¹

[3] Parents both have a history of illegal drug use. In July 2023, while pregnant with J.C. IV, Mother was found using heroin in a Walmart bathroom. When J.C. IV was born six weeks later, his cord blood tested positive for multiple drugs, including methamphetamine and fentanyl, and he had to be admitted to the NICU. The Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report that J.C. IV was a drug-exposed infant and interviewed Parents at the hospital. Parents denied that Mother had used any illegal drugs since July and “thought that the heroin might have had methamphetamine mixed in with it.” Ex. Vol. 1 p. 221. Father reported that he was in recovery.

[4] Two weeks after J.C. IV's birth, DCS filed a petition alleging that he was a child in need of services (CHINS). Once he was released from the hospital, DCS placed him with Father's mother (“Grandmother”). In November 2023, after a fact-finding hearing, the trial court adjudicated J.C. IV a CHINS. In its dispositional decree, the court ordered Parents to, among other things, complete a substance-use-disorder assessment, refrain from illegal drug use, submit to random drug screens, attend supervised visitation, and participate in individual counseling and home-based case management. Parents initially submitted to drug screens and completed assessments. As a result of their assessments, they were recommended to undergo intensive inpatient treatment. Parents enrolled in March 2024 but checked themselves out after two days. Thereafter, they stopped submitting to drug screens and didn't attend any visits.

[5] In April, Father was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. Two months later, he was caught shoplifting from Walmart and was charged with Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, and Class A misdemeanor theft. In July, pursuant to a plea agreement covering both cases, Father pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in the first case and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass in the second case. The trial court there sentenced him to a total term of 910 days—365 days on community corrections in the second case and 545 days suspended to probation in the first.

[6] Mother continued using drugs while pregnant with N.C. In August 2024, a week before giving birth, Mother overdosed on heroin in a McDonald's bathroom. Father was arrested at the McDonald's due to an outstanding warrant for failing to report to community corrections and was later ordered to execute his sentence in the county jail. When N.C. was born the following week, she had to be admitted to the NICU due to respiratory distress and withdrawal symptoms. Four days later, DCS filed a petition alleging that N.C. was a CHINS. After N.C. was discharged from the hospital, DCS placed her with Father's brother (“Uncle”) and his wife (“Aunt”) so “as to not overwhelm Paternal Grandmother.” Id. at 45.

[7] On October 28, upon admissions by Parents, the trial court adjudicated N.C. a CHINS. The following month, the court issued a dispositional decree ordering Parents to, among other things, refrain from illegal drug use, submit to random drug screens, complete substance-abuse treatment, and participate in individual counseling. The court also ordered that Parents could begin supervised visitation with N.C. after producing clean drug screens, and it ordered the same in J.C. IV's CHINS case (Parents had yet to visit with J.C. IV).

[8] The children each have special medical needs, likely due to their exposure to drugs in the womb. J.C. IV is “tongue tied,” meaning “the skin that holds [his tongue] in place is overgrown so he can't talk,” he can only “babble.” Tr. pp. 86, 94. As a result, he attends weekly speech therapy and will have to have surgery on his tongue. He also has behavioral and occupational therapy each week, and his pediatrician referred him for an autism evaluation (he had not yet undergone the evaluation by the time of the fact-finding hearing). N.C. has underdeveloped eyes and glaucoma. When she was just a few months old, DCS had to get the trial court's authorization for her to have surgery on her eyes. See Ex. Vol. 1 pp. 70-71. N.C. requires three different kinds of eye drops and is at high risk of going blind without them.

[9] Father was released from jail in January 2025 and began probation. Following his release, he completed inpatient treatment and moved into a recovery home. In March, Father showed up at Grandmother's home, where J.C. IV was still placed, “yelled at [Grandmother], and threatened to kill himself i[f] she did not let him borrow her car.” Id. at 150. Father took the car, but Grandmother refused to report the incident to law enforcement, so other family members reported the car as stolen. DCS moved to change J.C. IV's placement to Aunt and Uncle due to “concern[ ] that [Grandmother] will not be able to maintain proper boundaries, or follow the agreed safety plan.” Id. In April, the court authorized DCS to place J.C. IV with Aunt and Uncle, where he and N.C. have since remained. Once both children were with them, Aunt and Uncle would tell Father's case manager about the children's therapies and appointments, such as the appointments with N.C.’s eye specialist, in case Father wanted to attend. But he attended only a few appointments and didn't show “much interest in the kids[’] ․ medical conditions.” Tr. p. 91.

[10] Later in April, DCS petitioned to terminate Parents’ parental rights to both children. But Father began to make progress. He moved into an Oxford House, began taking Suboxone, and consistently submitted to drug screens, testing positive only for Suboxone. He also attended all of his case-management appointments and supervised visitation with the children twice a week. By June, visits had progressed to “semi-supervised,” and Father was working with his case manager to find independent housing. Ex. Vol. 1 p. 134. In August, DCS dismissed the termination petitions because Father had been sober since January and maintained steady employment since June.

[11] Despite Father's period of progress, in October, his probation officer “received a tip” that Father “was possibly using.” Tr. p. 43. The probation officer conducted a home check at Father's apartment and found a pipe, a digital scale, and a “wizinator, which is ․ a fake penis used to ․ pass drug screens.” Id. at 44. Father submitted to a drug screen, which was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. After that, he arrived late to some visits and missed others, so visitation went back to fully supervised. He also stopped taking Suboxone on his own. Later in October, Father was charged with two counts of Level 6 felony criminal trespass and two counts of Class A misdemeanor theft for shoplifting from Walmart again. Then, just a few weeks later, he stole Grandmother's car again and was caught with heroin and methamphetamine on his person. Father was arrested and charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug, and Level 6 felony auto theft. Additionally, the State petitioned to revoke his probation in the 2024 case.

[12] Later in November, DCS again petitioned to terminate Parents’ parental rights. At the time of the fact-finding hearing in February 2026, Father was still incarcerated, and his criminal cases were pending. He testified that after his release, he planned to enroll in a faith-based, residential recovery program through Trinity Mission. He acknowledged that it was a yearlong program and that the children wouldn't be able to live there with him. Parents each testified that they plan to be together after Mother finishes her prison sentence. Charles Stewart, the children's court-appointed special advocate (CASA), and Family Case Manager (FCM) Carol Santos both expressed concerns about this—CASA Stewart opined that Parents “are not good for one another” and that Father “puts mom and/or drugs above the children,” and FCM Santos testified that Parents “have triggered each other toward addiction.” Id. at 9, 68, 113.

[13] CASA Stewart recommended termination and adoption by Aunt and Uncle. He testified that the children had adjusted well in their placement, and Aunt and Uncle were meeting all their needs. FCM Santos also recommended adoption by Aunt and Uncle because the children are thriving in their care. She opined that termination is in the children's best interests due to Parents’ lack of stability, responsibility, and “being dialed in to their needs.” Id. at 111. CASA Stewart and FCM Santos similarly testified that even after all the services offered to them, Parents were still prone to relapse.

[14] After the hearing, the trial court issued an order terminating Parents’ rights.²

[15] Father now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[16] Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id. When a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the court's findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. To determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous, we review whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings and whether the findings support the judgment. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1143 (Ind. 2016). DCS must prove the allegations in a termination petition by clear and convincing evidence. See Ind. Code § 31-34-12-2.

[17] Here, DCS filed its termination petition under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4. A petition under that section 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.

I.C. § 31-35-2-4(c). Father does not challenge any of the circumstances alleged and found under subsection (d) or that there is a satisfactory plan for care and treatment of the children; his only challenge is to the trial court's conclusion that termination is in the children's best interests.

[18] In determining whether termination is in a child's best interests, the trial court must look at the totality of the evidence and subordinate the parent's interests to those of the child. In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019), reh'g denied. Termination of a parent-child relationship is proper where the child's emotional and physical development is threatened. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235. Additionally, a child's need for permanency is a “central consideration” in determining the best interests of a child. Id. “Indeed, children cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward preservation or reunification.” Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d at 49 (quotation omitted).

[19] Here, the children's emotional and physical development are clearly threatened. Both children were born drug-exposed because Mother used drugs while pregnant, which Father knew. Critically, Mother overdosed in a McDonald's bathroom just one week before giving birth to N.C. Likely due to their drug exposure, the children each have special medical needs. J.C. IV can't talk because he is “tongue tied,” so he has weekly speech therapy and will need surgery on his tongue. He also was referred for an autism evaluation and attends weekly behavioral and occupational therapy. N.C. has underdeveloped eyes and glaucoma, for which she has already had surgery, and she has three types of eye drops and regular appointments with an eye specialist. Aunt and Uncle would relay information to Father about the children's therapies and appointments in case he wanted to attend. But Father didn't show “much interest in the kids[’] ․ medical conditions” and wasn't “dialed in to their needs.”

[20] Despite the toll that drug exposure has taken on the children, Parents failed to adequately address their issues with illegal drug use. In March 2024, they checked themselves out of intensive inpatient treatment after just two days. Although Father successfully completed treatment in 2025, he relapsed after several months, stopped taking Suboxone on his own, and was charged with multiple drug-related offenses throughout the proceedings. And the period of clean screens before his confirmed relapse is called into question by the fact that his probation officer found a “wizinator” in his apartment, which is a device “used to ․ pass drug screens.” Additionally, Parents plan to be together after Mother finishes her prison sentence, which concerned CASA Stewart and FCM Santos because Parents “have triggered each other toward addiction,” and Father “puts mom and/or drugs above the children.” Parents’ issues with drug use have not been remedied and pose a safety risk to the children if they were returned to Parents’ care. See In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (finding termination in children's best interests where parents did not address their substance-abuse issues and children had been removed from their care for over two years), trans. denied.

[21] While this evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion, permanency is also a central consideration in determining the children's best interests. The children have never been in Parents’ care because they were both put in relative placement immediately after birth—nearly three years ago for J.C. IV and two years ago for N.C. Throughout both CHINS cases, Father's visitation never progressed past “semi-supervised.” And it was later changed back to fully supervised after he began arriving late and missing visits. Father was also unable to visit the children consistently because he was in and out of jail throughout the proceedings, both for incurring new criminal charges and violating community corrections and probation in earlier cases. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Father was incarcerated with two cases still pending. Whenever he is released, he plans to enroll in a yearlong residential treatment program through Trinity Mission, but the children will not be able to live with him there. Meanwhile, Mother will be in prison until at least 2029. As the trial court found, “[n]either parent will be able to provide an appropriate home for these children ․ within a reasonable length of time.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 23. By contrast, the children have adjusted well in their placement with Aunt and Uncle, to whom they are bonded and who wish to adopt them. CASA Stewart and FCM Santos both recommended adoption because Aunt and Uncle meet and understand the children's special needs, and the children are thriving in their care.

[22] The totality of the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that termination is in the children's best interests.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time of the fact-finding hearing, Mother's earliest possible release date was December 2029.

2.   In March 2026, Father entered into a plea agreement with the State covering both of his new criminal cases whereby he pled guilty to one count of Level 6 felony criminal trespass and one count of Class A misdemeanor theft in the shoplifting case and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug in the auto-theft case. The trial court there sentenced him to a total of three years in the Department of Correction followed by one year on community corrections.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.