IN RE: the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.N. and N.N. (Minor Children) and S.N. (Mother) (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] S.N. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, A.N. and N.N. (Children), arguing the Department of Child Services (DCS) failed to prove termination was in their best interests. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and D.N. (Father) [collectively, Parents] are married and have several children together, including A.N. (born August 2018) and N.N. (born October 2020). Due to Parents’ substance use, A.N. and her three older sisters were removed from Parents’ care and adjudicated children in need of services (CHINS) in March 2020. In October, the trial court approved a Trial Home Visit (THV), and in May 2021, the court granted DCS's motion to terminate its wardship and closed the case.

[3] In September 2022, the Children and the three older sisters were adjudicated CHINS as to Mother based on her admission that (1) the older sisters were not attending school as required and had been arrested and placed in juvenile detention, and (2) Parents had been “involved in a domestic violence incident,” arrested, and criminally charged in June. Exhibit Vol. 3 at 134. Father did not admit the same as his whereabouts were unknown to DCS at that time. Mother agreed to participate in Family Preservation services, home-based case management, and random drug screening, as well as complete domestic violence and substance abuse assessments. Later that month, Mother withheld from DCS where she and the Children were staying preventing DCS from finding them. Shortly thereafter, Mother was arrested, and when DCS eventually located the Children, the Children were removed from Mother's care. The court restricted Parents’ access to all five children, but Mother was permitted to participate in supervised visitation.

[4] By October, Mother had partially complied with services—she consistently visited the children, completed a clinical interview, and scheduled her substance abuse assessment. However, she had not completed any of the clinical interview's recommendations, and she repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine. Father's whereabouts were still unknown, and in November, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing at which Father failed to appear.¹ As to Father, the court adjudicated all five children CHINS for his “fail[ure] to supply adequate supervision and a home free from substance use and domestic violence.” Id. at 149. The court ordered him to participate in random drug screening and Fatherhood Engagement, complete a substance abuse evaluation and domestic violence assessment, and follow all recommendations. In December, Mother started participating in Family Recovery Court (FRC),² and the court allowed her to engage in her services through that program.

[5] Mother experienced some success during her time in FRC. As she moved through the program, she tested negative for methamphetamine and maintained some sobriety, participated in domestic violence services, and progressed to unsupervised visitation with the Children and a THV with the three older girls. But by the end of October 2023, Mother's housing had become unstable and she tested positive for methamphetamine, prompting DCS to terminate the older sisters’ THV and her unsupervised visitation with the Children. After this incident, Father began minimally participating in services, attending a few visits with the girls. Mother exercised supervised visitation and “always made it to a visit.” Transcript at 70. She also submitted to random drug screens, but the results were consistently positive for methamphetamine. In November, Mother voluntarily left FRC.

[6] In May 2024, the trial court changed the Children's permanency plan from reunification to reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. In support of the change, the court noted:

Mother [was] not consistently call[ing] in for drug screens. Mother provided a screen at the beginning of March and it was tampered with. The screen prior to that was positive for methamphetamine. Mother [did] not have stable housing. Mother and Father were involved in a domestic violence incident outside of the DCS office and visitations were stopped. Mother was given a virtual visit with the [C]hildren and it was ended early due to [M]other making derogatory statements about DCS. Mother [then had] supervised phone calls with the [Children].

Father [was] not participating in any services. Father [was] not in contact with DCS or service providers. Father ha[d] not participated in any visitation since the altercation outside the DCS office.

Ex. Vol. 7 at 75-76. Around the same time, the permanency plan shifted toward reunification with a concurrent plan that the Children's maternal grandmother would be their legal guardian. But when the grandmother tested positive for methamphetamine, the plan reverted to reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. At review hearings in July and December 2024 and May and October 2025, the court's observations of Parents’ progress, or the lack thereof, were similar to those it made in May 2024.

[7] On August 12, 2025, DCS filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights to the Children. The fact-finding hearing was held on January 12, 2026. Mother testified that she had been sober for approximately one month and that she lived either at her mother's home or at a friend's house. Father admitted he was not participating in services and had not attempted to communicate with the DCS Family Case Manager (FCM).

[8] Several other individuals testified, including the visitation supervisor, two FCMs, and the Children's Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA). Their testimonies were consistent with the facts described above. Although the second FCM—the most recent one assigned to their case—testified it would be beneficial for Mother to maintain communication with the Children if termination occurred, she nonetheless explained that Parents had not remedied the reasons for the Children's removal from their care and termination was in the Children's best interests. The CASA similarly recommended termination but agreed it would benefit the Children to remain in contact with Mother. Both witnesses clarified that their endorsement for post-termination contact with Mother did not change their ultimate recommendation that termination was in the Children's best interests.

[9] On February 17, the trial court entered an order with detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law terminating Parents’ parental rights. Mother now appeals.³

Discussion and Decision

[10] Mother argues termination of her parental rights was not in the Children's best interests. Parents have a fundamental liberty interest “in the care, custody, and control” of their children. In re Z.B., 108 N.E.3d 895, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005)), trans. denied. Given the importance placed on the parent-child relationship, the involuntary termination of parental rights is subject to a high bar. Id. Nonetheless, “a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the [Children] when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination.” In re K.T., 137 N.E.3d 317, 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[11] To terminate a parent-child relationship, DCS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, amongst other things, termination is in the Children's best interests. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c)(3) (2025); I.C. § 31-37-14-2 (1997). On appeal, we owe the trial court significant deference given its “unique position to assess the evidence,” and we review its findings and conclusions only for clear error. K.T., 137 N.E.3d at 326; Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). We determine “whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.” Z.B., 108 N.E.3d at 900 (quoting Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016)). In our review, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. Lastly, we accept any unchallenged findings of fact as true. Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.

[12] To determine whether termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Children's best interests, the trial court must “look to the totality of the evidence.” In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. The court's consideration also requires “subordinat[ing] the interests of the parents to the those of the children involved.” Id. “A parent's historical inability to provide a suitable environment along with the parent's current inability to do the same supports a finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the [Children].” Id. (quoting Lang v. Starke Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 861 N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied). Additionally, the Children's need for “[p]ermanency is a central consideration” on this issue. In re A.L., 223 N.E.3d 1126, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[13] We find ample support for the trial court's conclusion that termination was in the Children's best interests. As the court noted in its findings, Mother struggled to maintain sobriety and stable housing throughout the CHINS and termination proceedings. Specifically, after she voluntarily left FRC at the end of 2024, she continuously failed to call in for or submit to random drug screens and, even when she did, the results were positive for methamphetamine. She also failed to consistently engage in or complete the other services to which she was referred, including home-based case management and drug treatment programs. Overall, Mother was unable to demonstrate she could provide a sober and stable environment for the Children. Moreover, by the time the fact-finding hearing was held on the termination, the Children had been removed from her care for over three years and had been in eight different placements before their final, pre-adoptive placement. The Children's need for permanency was therefore evident. Lastly, both the FCM and the CASA testified it would serve the Children's best interests for the parent-child relationship to be terminated.

[14] We recognize that Mother consistently visited with the Children and developed a bond with them. Mother argues that her bond and the testimony that the Children would benefit from maintaining contact with her after termination undermine the trial court's best interests conclusion. However, Mother's bond does not negate clear evidence of her inability to stay sober and provide stable housing for the Children over the span of three years. Moreover, the FCM and the CASA unequivocally testified that despite their belief the Children would benefit from continued contact with Mother, termination was in their best interests.

[15] The record supports the court's conclusion that termination was in the Children's best interests. Therefore, we find no error in its judgment terminating Mother's parental rights.

Conclusion

[16] Finding the trial court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   DCS was unable to locate Father, and he had “evaded every attempt to [be] serve[d] ․” Ex. Vol. 3 at 149. Thus, DCS published service in a local newspaper for three consecutive weeks.

2.   Family Recovery Court is intended to help “families who are struggling with substance use” and requires participants to complete five phases, including finding employment, obtaining a GED, and staying sober. Transcript at 74.

3.   Father does not participate in this appeal.

DeBoer, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.