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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] T.S. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his minor daughter, A.S., claiming that the evidence did not establish that the conditions resulting in A.S.’s removal and continued placement outside his home would not likely be remedied, that the trial court's determination that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to A.S.’s well-being was speculative, and that the Department of Child Services (DCS) failed to show that termination was in A.S.’s best interest.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 1

[3] A.S. was born to Mother and Father on November 2, 2011, and at some point, A.S. began residing with Father and her paternal grandfather (Grandfather). On June 24, 2024, Father was charged with Level 1 felony child molesting; Level 4 felony child molesting; Level 5 felony child exploitation; and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A.S. was the alleged victim of those offenses.

[4] A.S. was removed from Father's residence on an emergency basis, and DCS filed a petition alleging that A.S. was a CHINS. The petition alleged that DCS had received a report that Father had sexually assaulted A.S. and that she had provided “credible disclosures of sexual abuse by both Father and her [Grandfather].” Exhibits 43-44. DCS further alleged that there were previous substantiated incidents of sexual abuse of A.S. by Grandfather, that Father “forced [A.S.] to smoke an unknown substance,” and that A.S. had observed Father “snorting a white powder and smoking marijuana.” Id.

[5] Father was in custody and did not appear at the CHINS fact-finding hearing. On October 8, 2024, A.S. was adjudicated a CHINS, and the trial court issued a dispositional order on October 30, 2024. Father, still in custody, was ordered to complete a substance abuse assessment, to follow recommendations resulting from that assessment, to refrain from consuming illegal substances and alcohol, and to remain in contact with DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Nicole Wheeler. Father was also ordered not to contact A.S.

[6] Father did not appear at a review hearing in January 2025 because he was incarcerated. The evidence showed that he had not participated in any court-ordered services.

[7] At some point, Father was released from incarceration after posting bond. FCM Wheeler was not able to locate Father for over a month. When the two eventually met, Father admitted that he had consumed “alcohol[,] other illegal substances[,] as well as marijuana” and he refused to be drug tested because he knew that he would test positive for illegal substances. Transcript at 17.

[8] Father appeared for a June 18, 2025 hearing, during which FCM Wheeler arranged therapy and home-based case management services for him. Father, however, did not undergo a court-ordered substance abuse assessment and he participated in only a few counseling sessions.

[9] On June 26, 2025, the trial court in Father's criminal case involving the child molest allegations issued a no contact order prohibiting Father from having any contact with A.S.

[10] On January 12, 2026, DCS filed its petition for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship. The petition alleged that termination was in A.S.’s best interest, that Father had been unable to remedy the circumstances that led to A.S.’s removal, that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to the removal would not be remedied, that there was a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to A.S., and that Father failed to substantially comply with the CHINS dispositional decree. While Father was out on bond on the molestation charges, he was arrested for public intoxication in February 2026.

[11] At the termination hearing on April 22, 2026, the evidence demonstrated that Father has a criminal history involving alcohol and drug abuse that started in 2004. Father testified and admitted to forty-one convictions for crimes related to substance abuse. Father, then age forty-two, had only worked a total of five years in his life because of his addiction to illegal substances and alcohol, and he spent much of A.S.’s life in jail. Father also admitted to a DCS worker that he had used methamphetamine five days before a March 2026 review hearing.

[12] DCS established that Father failed to substantially comply with the recommendations and requirements of the CHINS dispositional order. Father also admitted that he had not been a good father.

[13] Both FCM Wheeler and Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Braden Dean believed that termination was in A.S.’s best interest. GAL Dean testified that even if Father was not incarcerated, his recommendation would not change in light of the sexual molestation allegations against Father. GAL Dean believed that there would have to be an “astronomical amount of therapy to get them anywhere near reunification, if that's even possible.” Id. at 25.

[14] The evidence demonstrated that A.S. has been in foster care since August 2025, that she was in “good spirits” with her current placement, and that A.S.’s foster parents planned to adopt her. Transcript at 13, 25. A.S. did not want to be reunified with Father.

[15] Following the hearing, the trial court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 30, 2026, terminating Mother and Father's parental rights as to A.S.:

FINDINGS OF FACT

․

1) On July 2, 2024, ․ DCS received a report alleging the neglect and sexual abuse of ․ [A.S.] with the alleged perpetrators identified as ․ Father ․ and Mother․ ;

2) The report stated [A.S.] was sexually assaulted by her Father at a hotel in Logansport; 3) The report stated that Father forced [A.S.] to smoke an unknown substance;

․

7) [A] family friend informed FCM Clark that she brought [A.S.] to be examined due to [A.S.] disclosing that Father had sexually abused her approximately a week earlier;

․

15) [A.S.] disclosed sexual abuse by her father that occurred approximately a week earlier at the Manor Motel in Logansport;

16) [A.S.] stated that Mother won't allow her to reside with her and disclosed substance abuse and domestic violence in Mother's home;

17) On July 2, 2024, [A.S.] was forensically interviewed and provided credible disclosures of sexual abuse by both Father and grandfather;

18) DCS previously substantiated the sexual abuse of [A.S.] by grandfather in 2018. Father denied having knowledge of the substantiation and denied sexually abusing [A.S.];

․

22) Coercive Intervention by the Court is necessary for the health, safety and well-being of [A.S.]. On October 30, 2024, the CHINS Court issued a dispositional order following a hearing on the matter.

․

8. On October 30, 2024, the CHINS Court issued a dispositional order following a hearing on the matter. The following are found as facts from the dispositional order ․ for purposes of this termination proceeding:

․

III. Based on the information presented in the Predispositional Reports and provided at the hearing, the Court makes the following dispositional orders:

c. DCS is awarded wardship of the child, with responsibility for supervision, care and placement.

․

f. [A.S.] is presently in a Qualified Residential Treatment Placement where she is receiving services to work through her trauma and learn coping skills for when she is struggling. This placement needs to continue until a Therapeutic Foster Home becomes available. The Therapeutic Foster Parents should be trained in parenting children with complex interpersonal trauma, depression, self-injury, and suicidal tendencies. Multiple services for [A.S.] will need to continue even after she transitions to the Therapeutic Foster Home.

g. [The] Court hereby ORDERS that [Father] and [Grandfather] shall restrain from direct or indirect contact with [A.S.].

․

i. This order finds that [Father] has not maintained a meaningful role in [A.S.’s] life. [W]hile Father has been in and out of [A.S.’s] life between incarcerations, he is also the alleged perpetrator of some of the sexual abuse of [A.S.].

․

9. On ․ January 22, 2025, a review hearing was held in the underlying CHINS case. The following facts from the CHINS order are found for purposes of this termination proceeding:

d. [Father] has not enhanced [his] ability to fulfill [his] parental obligations.

․

f. [Father] has not visited [A.S.]. Due to the allegations against Father, and his incarceration, he has not visited with [A.S.].

․

l. [A.S.] is in the least restrictive, most family-like setting. [A.S.] has been removed and is currently in Foster Care.

․

n. Mother is not engaging in services. Father is the alleged perpetrator and is incarcerated and unable to engage in services.

10. On ․ April 10, 2025, the Court issued an order approving the permanency plan. The permanency plan for [A.S.] of reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption was . . approved by the Court.

b. [A.S.] is currently in placement in Therapeutic Foster Care and has resided at said location for approximately three (3) months.

c. [A.S.] is progressing well in said placement. [A.S.] is working on her mental health issues.

․

1. Of the permanency planning options available, the Court finds it is most appropriate and consistent with the best interest of [A.S.]:

․

B. The concurrent plan for [A.S.] is to be placed for adoption. Adoption is in [A.S.’s] best interests for the following reasons: [A.S.’s] mother and/or father have not complied with [A.S.’s] case plan.

․

11. Father

․

2(a). Father was in custody within the Department of Correction at the time of [A.S.’s] removal in the underlying CHINS proceeding.

․

(c). During those times that the father was not incarcerated, he failed to engage in or otherwise substantially comply with services as set forth in the Dispositional Decree or Child Case Plan.

(d). Father has a long history of substance abuse involving alcohol, methamphetamine, and other controlled substances. Father has been unable to maintain sobriety, establish a safe and sober home environment, or maintain gainful employment during most of his life but more specifically during the life of the underlying CHINS cause.

(e). During the life of the CHINS case, father has been offered various forms of therapy, homebased case management services along with substance assessment and treatment that included ․ drug screening; however, he has chosen not to engage in those services.

(f). Father has not engaged in visitation with [A.S.] particularly since the filing of criminal charges ․ wherein a No Contact Order was entered forbidding contact with [A.S.].

(g). While out on bond in the above referenced cause, father was arrested and charged with public intoxication․

(h). During the course of [A.S.’s] life, Father has spent a considerable portion of that time incarcerated for various criminal offenses, probation and parole violations.

(i). On or about March 18, 2026, at the most recent review hearing, Father admitted to a DCS FCM that he had recently used methamphetamine.

(j). [A.S.’s] needs require permanency and [DCS] has a satisfactory plan that involves adoption of [A.S.] by the current foster care parents.

(k). [A.S.] has bonded with the foster care parents.

(l). Unless or until the father achieves long-term sobriety and is exonerated for the criminal charges ․, reasons for placement outside the parents’ home will not be remedied and; (2) there is a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship will pose a substantial and continued risk of harm, safety and well-being to [A.S.]

(m). Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of [A.S.].

․

15. DCS has a plan that is satisfactory for [A.S.’s] care and treatment.

16. The [GAL] is supportive of the plan of termination of parental rights and believes it is in [A.S.’s] best interests to be adopted.

17. DCS believes it is in the best interests of [A.S.] that parental rights be terminated.

․

19. Each paragraph above also demonstrates the Court's finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interests of [A.S.], and is expressly adopted as the Court's own finding of fact.

Conclusions Of Law

․

5. Conclusions as to ․ Father:

i. [D]espite [DCS's] reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify [A.S.’s] family, ․ the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that resulted in [A.S.] being placed in care outside the parent's home;

ii. That there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in [A.S.’s] removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied;

iii. That there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health or life of [A.S.].

Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 71-84.

[16] Father now appeals.

Standard of Review

[17] In deference to the trial court's unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re S.K., 124 N.E.3d 1225, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Where, as here, a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions, our review is confined to two steps: whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). Reviewing whether the evidence “clearly and convincingly” supports the findings, or the findings “clearly and convincingly” support the judgment, is not a license to reweigh the evidence. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642 (Ind. 2014) (observing that weighing the evidence under the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable to termination cases is the trial court's prerogative, not ours). Further, we accept any unchallenged findings as true. See Matter of To.R., 177 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

Discussion and Decision

[18] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Off. of Fam. & Child., 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). A parent's interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” Id. However, parental rights “are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child's interests in determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights.” Id. If parents are “unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities,” termination of parental rights is appropriate. Id. We recognize that termination of a parent-child relationship is “an extreme measure and should only be utilized as a last resort when all other reasonable efforts to protect the integrity of the natural relationship between parent and child have failed.” K.E. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641, 646 (Ind. 2015).

[19] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS is required to allege and prove, among other things, the existence of one or more certain 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.

(4) That there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being, safety, physical health, or life of the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(d). In addition, DCS must allege and prove:

(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). DCS's burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of clear and convincing evidence. R.Y. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260 (Ind. 2009).

I. Conditions that Resulted in Removal/Continued Placement

[20] Father argues that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for A.S.’s removal or continued placement outside his home will not be remedied. Father claims that he was “not given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.” Appellant's Brief at 11.

[21] In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to a child's removal will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 642-43. First, we examine the conditions that led to the child's placement and retention in foster care, and second, whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied. Id. at 643. In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent's fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing a parent's recent improvements against “habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.” Id.

[22] In judging fitness, the trial court may consider, among other things, a parent's lack of adequate housing and employment, failure to provide support, and prior criminal history. In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The trial court may also consider a parent's response to services offered by DCS, and the reasons for a child's continued placement outside the home. Id. A pattern of unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with those providing social services, in conjunction with unchanged conditions, supports a finding that there exists no reasonable probability that the conditions will change. Id. To be sure, a parent's past behavior is often the best predictor of future behavior, and the court does not have to wait until the child has been irreparably harmed to the point of impaired physical, mental, and social growth to sever the parent-child relationship. In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

[23] When a parent fails to participate in court ordered services, the trial court may take this unwillingness as an indicator that the parent does not want to remedy the reasons for the child's removal. In re O.G., 159 N.E.3d 13, 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. And when the parent responsible for the child's care and custody is under the influence of drugs in the child's presence, the parent “essentially abandon[s] [the child] without any responsible supervision.” White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 1989).

[24] In this case, A.S. was removed from Father's custody after DCS received a report that he was using drugs and sexually assaulting her. Father's inability to refrain from substance use was clear through both his admissions to using drugs during the CHINS and termination proceedings and his subsequent arrest for public intoxication when he was out on bond on the molestation charges.

[25] Father also did not provide any required drug screenings from November 17, 2025 through March 3, 2026. In fact, the only drug screen Father provided that was suitable for testing was on June 18, 2025, and those results were positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, oxycodone, and THC. Father has not shown any indication that he will stop abusing drugs and alcohol.

[26] Father has also not meaningfully participated in any parenting services. Even when Father was not incarcerated and was offered therapy, home-based case management, and substance abuse treatment, he only participated in a few meetings with a counselor.

[27] A.S. is now fourteen years old, and Father has been charged with committing sex offenses against her. As GAL Dean testified, it would take an “astronomical amount of therapy to get them anywhere near reunification, if that's even possible.” Transcript at 25. A.S. has unequivocally indicated that she no longer desires a relationship with Father. To be sure, A.S.’s relationship with Father is fractured, with no indication that it can be repaired. Given the significant allegations of sexual abuse of A.S. by Father, the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to A.S.’s removal will not be remedied is not clearly erroneous. See, e.g., In re Mah., 134 N.E.3d 41, 49 (Ind. 2019) (trial court's findings that father allegedly sexually abused his stepdaughter supported its conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that a primary reason for the child's removal, i.e., her sexual abuse allegations against Father, would not be remedied).

[28] Even ignoring the molestation charges, Father has never demonstrated an ability to care for A.S., considering his extensive history of substance abuse and incarceration, and his complete lack of participation in parenting services. Father has been convicted of forty-one substance-related crimes, and he has been imprisoned for most of A.S.’s life. Father's past actions are clearly indicative that he would not be able to remain free to care for A.S. See, e.g., K.T.K. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013) (Mother's habitual pattern of substance abuse and criminal conduct resulted in continued neglect of child such that there was a substantial probability of future neglect).

[29] In sum, the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to A.S.’s removal will not be remedied.²

II. A.S.’s Best Interests

[30] Father challenges the trial court's conclusion that termination of his parental rights is in A.S.’s best interests. In determining the best interests of a child, the trial court must examine the totality of the evidence. In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d 158, 167-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the child. Id. at 168.

[31] The need for permanency is a “central consideration” in determining the child's best interests. Id. The recommendation by both the DCS case manager and child advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. L.S. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[32] In this case, the evidence established that Father's relationship with A.S. was likely irreparably damaged in light of the sexual abuse allegations. Further, Father was not likely to remain sober, and he failed to participate in parenting services. FCM Wheeler and GAL Dean also testified that termination of Father's parental rights was in A.S.’s best interest. DCS had a permanency plan for A.S., she was doing well in foster care, and her foster parents planned to adopt her.

[33] In sum, the totality of the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the termination of Father's parental rights was in A.S.’s best interests.

[34] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Father also argues that the trial court's findings do not support its conclusion that the continuation of the relationship posed a threat to A.S.’s well-being. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(c), DCS is required to prove only one of the factors alleged in I.C. § 31-35-2-4(d), and we therefore need not address Father's argument. See, e.g., In re J.S., 183 N.E.3d 362, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (statute regarding factors required to terminate parental rights is written in the disjunctive and, thus, DCS need prove only one of the enumerated elements therein), trans. denied.

Altice, Judge.

Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.