Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 1 of 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Deidre L. Monroe

Lake County Public Defender’s Office

Gary, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary 

Termination of the Parent-Child 

Relationship of E.T., M.T., J.T., 

S.T., T.W., Minor Children, and 

their Mother, J.R.,

J.R.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner,

May 26, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A03-1410-JT-364

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Thomas Stefaniak, 

Jr., Judge

Lower Court Cause Nos. 

45D06-1403-JT-57

45D06-1403-JT-58

45D06-1403-JT-59

45D06-1403-JT-60

45D06-1403-JT-61

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 2 of 14

Case Summary

[1] J.R. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her five 

children. She argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial 

court’s termination order and that termination of her parental rights is not in 

the children’s best interests. But after nearly a decade of services designed to 

improve her parenting abilities, Mother has failed to prove that she is capable of 

maintaining a safe and appropriate home for her children. Meanwhile, the 

children are thriving in pre-adoptive foster homes. We therefore conclude that 

there is sufficient evidence to support the termination order and termination is 

in the children’s best interests. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother has five children at issue in this case: twins S.T. and J.T., born in 

August 2003; E.T., born in July 2005; M.T., born in December 2006; and T.W., 

born in June 2008.1 Mother first became involved with the Indiana Department 

of Child Services (DCS) ten years ago, in 2005. At that time, S.T., J.T., and 

E.T. were adjudicated children in need of services (CHINS) due to, among 

other things, Mother’s failure to provide medical care for S.T., who had an 

organ transplant and required routine treatment and medication; her history of 

drug use, particularly methamphetamine; and her violent relationship with

 

1 Mother has had four other children: two are deceased, one was adopted, and the fourth does not live with 

Mother. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 3 of 14

N.T., the father of the twins and E.T. The three children were removed from 

Mother’s care and placed in foster care. Mother participated in services, and 

S.T. and J.T. were returned to her care in 2006. E.T., however, who has a 

genetic condition that requires specialized medical care, remained in foster care 

for two more years. E.T. was eventually returned to Mother’s care, and the 

CHINS case was closed in 2009. 

[3] In March 2010 the children were adjudicated CHINS after DCS discovered that

Mother’s home was unsanitary and the twins were not attending school. The 

children had also been exposed to domestic violence between Mother and 

Q.W., T.W.’s father. The five children—M.T. and T.W. were born in the years 

following the first CHINS adjudication—were removed from Mother’s care and 

placed in foster care. Mother participated in additional services, and in early 

2012, the children were returned to her care. But later that year, DCS filed a 

third CHINS petition. It alleged that Mother was using drugs, her home was 

unsanitary, and she was still involved in a violent relationship with Q.W. 

Mother admitted the allegations, and the children were adjudicated CHINS and 

placed in foster care.2 Mother was again ordered to participate in services, 

including supervised visitation, substance-abuse and domestic-violence 

assessments, and random drug screens. 

 

2 This was the third CHINS adjudication for the twins and E.T., and the second for M.T. and T.W. 

Likewise, this was the third removal for the twins and E.T., and the second for M.T. and T.W. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 4 of 14

[4] In September 2014 DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s rights. At a 

hearing on the petition, caseworkers expressed concern about Mother’s 

extensive DCS history and the children’s repeated removal from her care. 

Family Case Manager Tina Kozlowski (“FCM Kozlowski”) testified that 

although Mother had completed the required services, she remained concerned 

about the idea of the children returning to Mother’s care. Tr. p. 40. She noted

Mother’s violent, recurring relationship with Q.W., saying that she “fear[ed] . . 

. [Mother] and [Q.W.] would get back together and continue to create an unsafe 

environment for the children, as they have.” Id. She also explained that S.T. 

and E.T. needed ongoing medical care, and she doubted that Mother would 

ensure that they received such care consistently. Id. at 31. Family Case 

Manager Tracy Pimental (“FCM Pimental”) echoed these sentiments. She also 

explained that the children acted out after being removed from Mother’s care, 

but their behavior had improved in their current foster homes. Id. at 95. 

Problematic behaviors returned, however, when Mother suggested that the 

children would be returning to live with her. Id. at 117. FCM Pimental 

testified that the children’s behavioral issues—which included defiant and 

aggressive behavior, emotional outbursts, and hygiene problems—were caused 

by “the numerous removals” and “the things that they’ve witnessed in their 

home when they were back at home.” Id. at 109. In FCM Pimental’s opinion, 

the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children 

“due to the history . . . the inconsistency . . . with each removal it has

progressed. With each removal the standards of the home, the things that were 

going in the home had progressed, and we’re at this point now.” Id. at 110. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 5 of 14

She testified that termination was in the children’s best interests because “th[e] 

[children] deserve and need stability and permanency in their lives. They’ve 

gone through enough.” Id. 

[5] Mother’s drug use was also a cause for concern. Mother testified that she had 

been addicted to methamphetamine for ten years. Id. at 50. She also admitted 

that she tested positive for marijuana one time just before the termination 

hearing, but she claimed that someone brought marijuana-laced cookies to her

workplace, and she ate the cookies without knowing they contained marijuana. 

Id. at 89-90. 

[6] Raelene Reynolds, the children’s therapist, testified that the children “had 

worked for almost two years to become stable,” and had bonded with their 

foster parents. Id. at 132. Reynolds feared that “should [the children] be placed 

back with [Mother] . . . [there is] a high chance that they’ll be removed again . . 

. everything that they worked for I think would be lost.” Id. According to 

Reynolds, the children’s “best chance [is] to be adopted right now.” Id. at 133. 

[7] Family Case Manager Michael Wey (“FCM Wey”) stated that in the past ten 

years, DCS had provided Mother with services worth $478,000, including:

[c]linical interviews and assessments for all the parents and the 

children; domestic[-]violence assessment for the parents; domestic[-

]violence services for the parents; substance[-]use disorder assessment 

for the parents; random drug testing for the parents; psychological 

evaluation for the parents and the children; bonding assessments for 

the parents and the children; individual counseling for the parents and 

children; family counseling for parents and children; home-based 

therapy for parents and children; homemaker services for parents for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 6 of 14

transportation as needed; family[-]preservation services for parents and 

children; visitation[-]supervision services for parents and children; [] 

medication evaluation for the children; and ongoing medication 

monitoring for [J.T.], [S.T.], and [E.T.]. In addition . . . [Mother] . . . 

was offered parenting classes. 

Id. at 143. 

[8] He testified that DCS’s efforts were unsuccessful and Mother had not changed 

her ways. Id. at 143-44. He acknowledged that Mother loved the children, but 

stated that

[t]here remains a concern of her ability to protect the children from 

abuse and neglect long term. She has been compliant with her 

services, but again there’s participating and completing those services 

and [then] there’s applying everything that [has] been learned from 

those services, and there is concern that the application of those skills 

learned in services would not be done.

Id. at 144. FCM Wey recommended terminating Mother’s rights based on 

Mother’s “inability to keep the children in a safe, [] stable, and permanent 

environment . . . as evidenced by the history in the previous cases.” Id. at 146. 

[9] In September 2014 the trial court entered an order with findings terminating 

Mother’s parental rights. Appellant’s App. p. 1-8. In its detailed order, the 

court emphasized Mother’s lengthy history with DCS:

[DCS] has been involved with these children except for a few short 

months, since 2005 . . . . [T]he conditions that caused the first removal 

in 2005 continue to be an issue, due to [DCS] becoming involved a few 

short months after the first [CHINS] dismissal and then a few short 

months after the second [CHINS] dismissal for exactly the same 

reasons. The extensive and numerous services offered to the parents 

over the years have not remedied the situation. Mother testified that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 7 of 14

[Q.W.] was out of her life and she is drug free. Those facts are positive 

for Mother and commendable.

It is unlikely that any of the parents can keep the children safe and 

healthy. Without the continuous intervention of [DCS], the reasons 

that cause[d] the numerous removals seem to re-appear. All services 

have proved to be ineffective due to the continued substance-abuse 

issues, the domestic-violence issues, the lack of medical care for the 

children, and the unsanitary home conditions. History has shown that 

none of these parents have been able to consistently meet the needs of 

the children and Mother’s positive lifestyle choices of late are good 

steps. However, she is still in therapy and [that] will be ongoing. The 

children think that going to foster homes is a normal part of life, 

because that is all they have known. The children are currently in 

loving pre-adoptive homes and the children’s past bad behaviors 

resurface when the children think they will return home with Mother.

The parents were given numerous chances over the years, and 

although money is not a determinative factor for the Court, the State 

of Indiana has spent over $450,000 on this family. That shows the 

great lengths that the State has gone to in trying to reunify these 

children. These children have been wards [of the State] for the better 

part of nine years. The parents have not remedied the problems after 

nine years of intervention. Domestic violence was frequent in the 

home, the home was filthy, [] the children were not receiving the full 

medical care that they needed, and drug use seems to continue with 

the mother. The children had been removed three times. The parents 

knew exactly what they needed to do to regain custody of these 

children and they were successful on occasion only to fall back into the 

same behavioral patterns. Mother loves her children, but under these 

facts that is not enough. The children have suffered enough trauma. 

Id. at 3-4.

[10] Mother now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 8 of 14

[11] Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

order terminating her parental rights. She also argues that termination of her 

parental rights is not in the children’s best interests. 

[12] “The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the 

traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children.” In re

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013) (citations omitted). The parentchild relationship is one of our culture’s most valued relationships. Id. (citation 

omitted). “And a parent’s interest in the upbringing of their child is ‘perhaps 

the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the courts.’” Id.

(quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). But parental rights are not 

absolute—“children have an interest in terminating parental rights that prevent 

adoption and inhibit establishing secure, stable, long-term, continuous 

relationships.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, a parent’s interests must be 

subordinated to a child’s interests when considering a termination petition. Id.

(citation omitted). A parent’s rights may be terminated if the parent is unable 

or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities by failing to provide for the 

child’s immediate and long-term needs. Id. (citations omitted). 

[13] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 1229 (citation omitted). 

Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support 

the judgment. Id. (citation omitted). “Where a trial court has entered findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the trial court’s findings or 

judgment unless clearly erroneous.” Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)). In 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 9 of 14

determining whether the court’s decision to terminate the parent-child 

relationship is clearly erroneous, “we review the trial court’s judgment to 

determine whether the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings 

and the findings clearly and convincingly support the judgment.” Id. (citation 

omitted). 

[14] A petition to terminate parental rights must allege:

(A) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at 

least six (6) months under a dispositional decree.

(ii) A court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-

5.6 that reasonable efforts for family preservation or 

reunification are not required, including a description 

of the court’s finding, the date of the finding, and the 

manner in which the finding was made.

(iii) The child has been removed from the parent and has 

been under the supervision of a local office or 

probation department for at least fifteen (15) months 

of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning 

with the date the child is removed from the home as a 

result of the child being alleged to be a child in need of 

services or a delinquent child;

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 10 of 14

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation 

of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the 

well-being of the child.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been 

adjudicated a child in need of services;

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and

(D)that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the 

child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). 

[15] “DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.” 

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231 (citation omitted). On appeal, Mother challenges 

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment as to 

subsections (B) and (C) of the termination statute. 

1. Conditions Remedied

[16] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive. Therefore, 

DCS was required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, only one of 

the three requirements of subsection (B). We therefore only discuss whether 

there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the 

children’s removal or the reasons for their placement outside Mother’s home 

will not be remedied. 

[17] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child’s removal or 

placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 11 of 14

analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted). We first 

identify the conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and 

then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions 

will not be remedied. Id. (quotation omitted). The second step requires trial 

courts to judge a parent’s fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, 

taking into consideration evidence of changed conditions, and balancing any 

recent improvements against “habitual patterns of conduct to determine 

whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.” Id.

(citations omitted). In so doing, trial courts have discretion to “weigh a parent’s 

prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination,”

and courts may find “that parents’ past behavior is the best predictor of their 

future behavior.” Id.

[18] Here, the trial court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that the 

conditions resulting in the children’s removal from Mother’s care or placement 

outside her home would not be remedied. The court was primarily concerned 

with Mother’s lengthy DCS history and the children’s repeated removals. As 

the court explained:

The parents were given numerous chances over the years, and 

although money is not a determinative factor for the Court, the State 

of Indiana has spent over $450,000 on this family. That shows the 

great lengths that the State has gone to in trying to reunify these 

children. These children have been wards [of the State] for the better 

part of nine years. The parents have not remedied the problems after 

nine years of intervention. Domestic violence was frequent in the 

home, the home was filthy, [] the children were not receiving the full 

medical care that they needed, and drug use seems to continue with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 12 of 14

the mother. The children had been removed three times. The parents 

knew exactly what they needed to do to regain custody of these 

children and they were successful on occasion only to fall back into the 

same behavioral patterns.

Appellant’s App. p. 3-4. 

[19] The evidence provided at the termination hearing supports the court’s findings. 

Three caseworkers testified that after repeated CHINS adjudications and nearly 

a decade of services, they still doubted Mother’s ability to parent the children

long term, particularly in light of her past drug use and violent relationship with 

the father of her youngest child. When asked about drug use, Mother admitted 

that she tested positive for marijuana just before the termination hearing, but 

she claimed she ingested the marijuana unwittingly. FCM Pimental and FCM 

Wey testified that continuing the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the 

children, and FCM Wey recommended terminating Mother’s rights. He 

explained that although Mother had complied with her case plan and 

participated in services, “there’s participating and completing those services and 

[then] there’s applying everything that [has] been learned from those services, 

and there is concern that the application of those skills learned in services 

would not be done.” Tr. p. 144. Having heard this and other evidence, the trial 

court was within its discretion in determining that Mother’s historical inability

to parent the children appropriately would not change, even though she made 

some progress during the most recent CHINS proceeding. See E.M., 4 N.E.3d 

at 643 (trial courts have discretion to “weigh a parent’s prior history more 

heavily than efforts made only shortly before termination,” and courts may find 

“that parents’ past behavior is the best predictor of their future behavior.”); see 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 13 of 14

also In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (DCS need not provide 

evidence ruling out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that 

there is a reasonable probability the parent’s behavior will not change.). We 

conclude that the trial court properly determined that there was a reasonable 

probability that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal or the reasons 

for their placement outside Mother’s home would not be remedied. 

2. Best Interests

[20] Mother also contends that termination of her parental rights is not in the 

children’s best interests. In determining what is in a child’s best interests, the 

trial court must look to the totality of the evidence. See A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of 

Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “In so 

doing, the trial court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the 

child.” Id. The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed before 

terminating the parent-child relationship. Id.

[21] Mother has been working with DCS for nearly a decade. During this time, the 

children were repeatedly removed from her care, sometimes for years at a time. 

As caseworkers explained at the termination hearing, this had a negative impact 

on the children, who acted out upon each removal. But in the years leading up 

to the termination hearing, the children’s behavior improved and they bonded 

with their foster parents, who wished to adopt them. FCM Pimental testified 

that termination was in the children’s best interests because “th[e] [children] 

deserve and need stability and permanency in their lives. They’ve gone through 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1410-JT-364 | May 26, 2015 Page 14 of 14

enough.” Tr. p. 110. Reynolds, the children’s therapist, testified that the 

children “had worked for almost two years to become stable,” and had learned

to trust their foster parents. Id. at 132. Reynolds feared that “should [the 

children] be placed back with [Mother] . . . [there is] a high chance that they’ll 

be removed again . . . everything that they worked for I think would be lost.” 

Id. According to Reynolds, the children’s “best chance [is] to be adopted right 

now.” Id. at 133. 

[22] We conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that 

termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See In 

re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (testimony of caseworkers, together 

with evidence that the conditions resulting in placement outside the home will 

not be remedied, was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

termination was in child’s best interests), trans. denied; see also In re S.P.H., 806 

N.E.2d 874, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (children’s needs are too substantial to 

force them to wait while determining if their parents will be able to parent 

them). 

Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.