IN RE: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.E. and Br.E. (Minor Children); (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] D.B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parent-child relationships with his two sons, B.E. (“B.E.”) and Br.E. (“Br.E.”) (collectively “the children”). He argues that the trial court's order terminating his parental relationships with the children is clearly erroneous. Concluding that the trial court's order terminating Father's parental relationships with the children is not clearly erroneous, we affirm the trial court's judgment.¹

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court's order terminating Father's parental relationships with the children is clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] Mother and Father are the parents of B.E., who was born in December 2020, and Br.E., who was born at the end of June 2024. The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed the children from Mother in early July 2024 because Br.E. tested positive for methamphetamine when he was born and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. DCS placed the children with maternal grandmother and her partner (“foster parents”).

[4] In July 2024, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children were children in need of services (“CHINS”). Father was not included in the petition because, at that time, DCS did not know the identity of the children's biological father. In February 2025, after thirty-eight-year-old Father had been identified as the children's biological father, DCS filed a second amended CHINS petition. One month later, Father stipulated that the children were CHINS. The children were not placed with Father because of his drug use.

[5] Following the CHINS adjudication, the trial court ordered Father to: (1) participate in the Fatherhood Engagement program; (2) attend supervised visits with the children; (3) participate in a substance use assessment and follow all of the assessor's recommendations; (4) abstain from the use of illegal substances; and (5) participate in drug screens.

[6] After a June 2025 review hearing, the trial court issued an order noting that Father had not participated in the Fatherhood Engagement program, a substance use assessment, or drug screens. Six months later, following a December 2025 review hearing, the trial court issued an order noting that all of Father's drug tests had either been positive for methamphetamine or presumed positive because Father had failed to call in to determine whether he needed to participate in a drug test. Specifically, Father tested positive for methamphetamine two times in August 2025, four times in September 2025, two times in October 2025, one time in November 2025, and two times in December 2025. The trial court's order further noted that Father had participated in a substance use assessment but had failed to follow the assessor's recommendations because of his work schedule. The FCM had attempted to accommodate Father's work schedule by referring him to alternative providers, but Father had not followed through with the referrals. Father had successfully completed the Fatherhood Engagement program and had participated in supervised visits for two hours every week with the children.

[7] In December 2025, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father's parental relationships with the children. After DCS had filed the petition, Father twice tested positive for methamphetamine, once in January 2026 and once in February 2026. In addition, his February 2026 test was positive for cocaine.

[8] The trial court heard the facts as set forth above at the March 2026 termination hearing. In addition, the DCS family case manager (“the FCM”) testified that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. According to the FCM, the children were thriving in foster care, the foster parents offered the children permanency and stability, and the plan for the children's care was foster parent adoption. The CASA (“the CASA”) also testified that the children were thriving in foster care and that termination was in the children's best interests.

[9] In addition, Father testified at the hearing. Specifically, he testified that he did not want to use drugs and that he believed that he could “get clean regardless of the results.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 63). Father also testified that he thought that it would be a mistake for the trial court to terminate his parental rights because he was a good parent and he loved the children.

[10] In May 2026, the trial court issued an order terminating Father's parental relationships with the children. In this order, the trial court found that Father had consistently failed drug tests throughout the pendency of the CHINS proceedings. In addition, the trial court concluded that: (1) there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal or the reasons for their placement outside the home would not be remedied; (2) termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests; and (3) there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the children, specifically adoption.

[11] Father now appeals.

Decision

[12] Father argues that the trial court's order terminating his parental relationships with the children is clearly erroneous. We disagree.

[13] The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. Id. at 1188. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where a child's emotional and physical development is threatened. Id. Although the right to raise one's own child should not be terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or her parental responsibilities. Id.

[14] Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 provides, in relevant part, that DCS must allege in its termination petition as follows:

(c) A petition filed under subsection (a) 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.

(d) A petition filed under subsection (a) must allege the existence of one (1) or more of the following circumstances:

* * * * *

(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 § 31-35-2-4.² DCS must prove these alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Dearborn County Office, 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[15] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, this Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that support the judgment and give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229.

[16] Father argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental relationships with the children. Specifically, he argues that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was in the children's best interests.

[17] In determining whether a termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the children involved. Id. Termination of the parent-child relationship is proper where the children's emotional and physical development is threatened. In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235.

[18] A child's need for permanency is a central consideration in determining the child's best interests. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009), reh'g denied. Moreover, this Court has previously explained that “the recommendations of the case manager and court-appointed 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.” In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[19] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that, during the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, all of Father's drug tests were positive for methamphetamine. Two of those methamphetamine-positive tests occurred after DCS had filed the termination petition, and one of those tests was also positive for cocaine.

[20] Further, both the FCM and the CASA testified that adoption was in the children's best interests. Moreover, the trial court concluded that DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that had resulted in the children's removal would not be remedied, and, in his appellate brief, Father “concede[s] [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's Br. 11). In addition, we note that at the time of the termination hearing, the children were thriving with foster parents, who planned to adopt the children and offer them permanency. The totality of this evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the termination of the parent-child relationships was in the children's best interests.³

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The children's mother (“Mother”) is not participating in this appeal.

2.   The General Assembly amended Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4 effective July 1, 2025. Because DCS filed the termination petition in this case in December 2025, the amended version of the statute applies here.

3.   Father also makes a cursory argument that “DCS presented no evidence of the plan for the future care and treatment of the child[ren].” (Father's Br. 11). However, the FCM testified that the plan for the children was adoption, and this Court has previously explained that adoption is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of children under the termination of parental rights statute. See In re B.M., 913 N.E.2d 1283, 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Pyle, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.