M.D. (Father), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In April 2026, the trial court terminated the parental rights of M.D. (“Father”) to his children, L.M.D. and L.S.D (collectively, “Children”). Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing that the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) violated his due process rights and that the trial court's findings do not support its conclusions that the conditions under which Children were removed from his care would not be remedied and that termination was in Children's best interests. We affirm.

 Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and K.B.D. (“Mother”)¹ (collectively, “Parents”) are the parents of twins L.M.D. and L.S.D., who were born July 24, 2020. Shortly after Children's birth, DCS became involved with the family because the hospital reported Children were born drug exposed. DCS noted prior cases in which Parents’ older children were removed from their care due to illegal substance use. In the 2020 case involving Parents’ older children, Parents consistently tested positive for illegal substances, but the case was closed in June 2022.

[3] On October 12, 2024, police called DCS after discovering Parents and Children in a vehicle in front of a gas station. Parents were passed out in the front seats of the vehicle and Children, who were over four years old, were in the back seat, dirty and in overflowing soiled diapers. Parents reported they had prescriptions for Methadone and Clonazepam and had ingested marijuana edibles but denied being intoxicated and refused a drug test. Police took Parents to jail, and the State charged them with neglect of a dependent and other charges. DCS removed Children from Parents’ care and placed them with their maternal grandmother, where they have remained since.

[4] DCS subsequently filed petitions alleging Children were Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”), and on December 17, 2024, the trial court adjudicated Children as CHINS based on Parents’ stipulations. In its dispositional order, the trial court required Father, among other things, to obtain and maintain suitable housing; secure a legal and stable source of income; refrain from using illegal substances and submit to random drug screens; and complete substance abuse and parenting assessments and any resulting recommendations.

[5] Over the months that followed, Father did not consistently participate in services designed to remedy the conditions under which Children were removed from his care. On October 24, 2025, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to Children based on his noncompliance with services. On November 13, 2025, Mother filed consents to Children's adoption by maternal grandmother. The trial court held fact-finding hearings regarding the termination of Father's parental rights to Children in January and February 2026.

[6] DCS presented evidence of Father's failure to engage in services. Over the course of the CHINS and termination proceedings, his drug screens returned positive, in varying combinations, for methamphetamine, amphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, and methadone, and Father eventually stopped participating in drug screens. Father did not complete a substance abuse assessment, and his referrals for a parenting assessment and home-based casework likewise closed after he failed to comply. DCS provided supervised visitation through four different providers, but Father never progressed to unsupervised parenting time, and each supervisor reported Father fell asleep during visits.

[7] Father also did not obtain stable housing, as he lived in approximately six different hotels and motels; briefly stayed at maternal grandfather's home; and resided in a hotel at the time of the fact-finding hearing. The home he hoped to move into remained under construction, with power but no running water; the town had filed an unsafe-building complaint against it, and boards covered its windows and openings. Father had no valid driver's license and no vehicle. He had an extensive criminal history, including the offenses stemming from the incident that precipitated DCS involvement here, to which he pled guilty. In addition, based on an October 2025 incident, the State charged Father with felony theft, and that case was pending at the time of the fact-finding hearings.

[8] Father told the trial court he had made great strides toward reunification with Children. He described the filing of the termination petitions as a wakeup call and testified that, while incarcerated in the Madison County jail, he completed a six-week faith-based recovery program and earned a certificate of completion. Father also claimed that, after his release, he began daily methadone treatment at an Indianapolis clinic, obtained work through a temporary agency, and had not used illicit substances in more than four months. The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights to Children.

 Discussion and Decision

[9] To terminate a parent-child relationship, DCS must allege and prove there is a satisfactory plan for the child's care and treatment, that termination is in the child's best interests, and one or more of the circumstances in Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(d) (2024). Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c) (2024). DCS must provide clear and convincing proof of these allegations. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009). Those Section 4(d) circumstances include a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the child's removal or continued placement outside the home will not be remedied, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)(3) (2024), and a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child's well-being, Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d)(4) (2024).

[10] When reviewing the trial court's decision, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment. In re J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. Where, as here, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered standard of review: we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment, and we will set the judgment aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). We accept unchallenged findings as true. Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

1. Due Process

[11] Father contends he suffered a violation of his due process rights when DCS did not provide him with certain services. To protect a parent's due process rights relevant to termination proceedings, DCS is generally required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and/or reunify the family. In re T.W., 135 N.E.3d 607, 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “Reasonable efforts” vary from case to case. Id. However, “a failure to provide services does not serve as a basis on which to directly attack a termination order as contrary to law.” J.W., 259 N.E.3d 1039, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied).

[12] In his brief, Father contends DCS did not refer him to several services. However, if Father felt the services DCS offered were inadequate, it was his responsibility to bring that to DCS's attention. See, e.g., In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“[A] parent may not sit idly by without asserting a need or desire for services and then successfully argue that he was denied services to assist him with his parenting.”). Therefore, we decline Father's request to reverse the termination of his parental rights to Children based on his allegation that he did not receive adequate services.

2. Conditions Would Not Be Remedied

[13] Father next argues DCS failed to prove the conditions resulting in Children's removal had not been or would not be remedied. However, to terminate Father's parental rights, the trial court needed to reach only one of the conclusions under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(d) (2025). In re T.S., 267 N.E.3d 6, 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. The trial court also concluded the continuation of the Father-Children relationship poses a risk to Children's well-being. Father does not argue that the trial court's findings do not support that conclusion, and thus we may affirm under that portion of the statute without addressing his argument about the probability that conditions will be remedied. See In re L.S. 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (because Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) (1997)  ² is written in the disjunctive, trial court needs to find only one requirement to terminate parental rights), trans. denied.

3. Best Interests

[14] Finally, Father contends the termination of his parental rights is not in Children's best interests. In determining the children's best interests, the trial court looks to the totality of the evidence, subordinates the parent's interests to those of the children, and need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed. Z.B. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 108 N.E.3d 895, 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Additionally, the recommendations of service providers may support finding that termination is in the children's best interests. Id.

[15] Here the trial court found that Father did not complete services, tested positive for illegal substances multiple times before refusing to take drug tests, did not have suitable housing, and never progressed beyond supervised visitation with Children. In addition, it found that both the DCS family case manager and the court appointed special advocate recommended the termination of Father's parental rights. Based thereon, the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in Children's best interests. See, e.g., J.W., 259 N.E.3d at 1047 (“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 [child]”) (quoting Lang v. Starke Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 861 N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied).

 Conclusion

[16] Father's due process rights were not violated, his argument regarding whether the trial court's findings support its conclusion that the conditions under which Children were removed from his care is waived, and the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights to Children was in Children's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mother signed consents to the adoption of Children and does not participate in this appeal.

2.   The language of this statute was virtually identical to Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(d) (2025).

May, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Vaidik, J., concur.