Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 1 of 12

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

Ana M. Quirk

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney 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 Al.K. (Minor 

Child) 

and

A.K. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 31, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-249

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kimberly Dowling, 

Judge

The Honorable Amanda Yonally, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

18C02-1801-JT-1
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 2 of 12

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] A.K. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to 

her child Al.K. (“Child”). Her sole contention on appeal is that the trial court 

committed clear error in concluding that there is a reasonable probability that 

the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal or the reasons for placement 

outside the home will not be remedied. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The undisputed facts show that Child was born in August 2013.1 In April 2016, 

the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed Child from 

Mother’s care and filed a petition alleging Child was a child in need of services 

(“CHINS”).2 The CHINS petition alleged that Mother used illicit substances, 

including methamphetamine and amphetamine; her recent drug screen yielded 

positive results for methamphetamine and amphetamine; she had four previous 

DCS substantiations;3 and she was involved in one prior CHINS matter, which

was closed in June 2012. Appellee’s App. Vol. 2 at 2. The trial court held a 

CHINS detention hearing and found that there was probable cause to believe 

 

1 Mother has another older child who is not part of this case.

2

 Child’s father is M.K. The trial court found that “[M.K.] has no relationship with [Child], has not visited 

[Child] or engaged in any services, and has expressed his desire to not have any contact or involvement with 

[Child] or the CHINS case.” Appealed Order at 7. The trial court terminated M.K.’s parental rights, but he 

is not participating in this appeal.

3

 The petition does not give any details about Mother’s previous DCS substantiations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 3 of 12

that Child was a CHINS based on Mother’s drug use and that detention was 

necessary to protect Child. Child was placed with her paternal grandparents. In 

September 2016, the trial court held a continued initial hearing and ordered 

Mother into provisional services, including random drug screens.

[3] In November 2016, the trial court held a CHINS factfinding hearing and

entered an order adjudicating Child a CHINS. In March 2017, the trial court 

held the dispositional hearing and subsequently entered a dispositional decree, 

in which it ordered Mother to participate in any programs recommended by the 

DCS family case manager (“FCM”); maintain suitable, safe, and stable 

housing; secure and maintain a legal and stable source of income; not use or 

consume illegal controlled substances; submit to random drug screens;

complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all treatment 

recommendations; and attend all scheduled supervised visitation with Child, 

which could be changed to a hybrid visitation schedule of both supervised and 

unsupervised visitation at DCS’s discretion. Ex. at 22-24.

[4] In October 2017, following a hearing, the trial court entered a permanency

order finding that Mother had been inconsistent with visitation and 

noncompliant with reunification services and providing for concurrent 

permanency plans of adoption and reunification. Child remained with her 

paternal grandparents. On January 23, 2018, DCS filed a verified petition for 

involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship. On April 16, 2018, the 

trial court held a permanency hearing and issued an order changing Child’s 

permanency plan to adoption. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 4 of 12

[5] On July 26, September 20, and October 4, 2018, the trial court held a 

factfinding hearing. On January 2, 2019, the trial court issued findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and order terminating parent-child relationship

(“Termination Order”), which contained findings, unchallenged by Mother, 

that establish the following facts. Mother failed to act on DCS’s initial referral 

for a substance abuse assessment. From June 2016 to June 2017, Jessie 

Wyman served as Mother and Child’s FCM. In FCM Wyman’s assessment,

Mother’s issues were homelessness, substance abuse, and unemployment. In 

June 2016, Mother was evicted from her apartment. Mother stayed with her 

mother on occasion, but FCM Wyman was unaware of where Mother was 

residing most of the time. To help Mother obtain housing and employment, 

DCS provided two referrals for home-based casework service, which Mother 

refused to participate in. FCM Wyman provided Mother with a second referral 

for a substance abuse assessment, which Mother failed to act on. Mother failed 

to submit to twenty-three of the forty-three drug screens requested by FCM 

Wyman. 

[6] In June 2017, when Clark Tudor was assigned as FCM, Mother’s issues 

regarding unstable housing, substance abuse, and unemployment had not been 

resolved. FCM Tudor was not aware of a permanent address for Mother. 

FCM Tudor provided a third referral for a substance abuse assessment, which 

Mother completed. Mother completed intake services at Centerstone and was 

assigned a counselor, but was ultimately dismissed from Centerstone because 

she kept only one scheduled appointment with the counselor, failed to appear 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 5 of 12

for three appointments, and cancelled one appointment. FCM Tudor then 

referred Mother to home-based casework services with Children’s Bureau. 

Mother met with her assigned counselor twice but was dismissed from the 

service due to her lack of engagement. 

[7] At the end of March 2018, FCM Tudor referred Mother to home-based 

casework services with Lifeline Youth and Family Services, and in April 2018, 

Mother began individual therapy with Katie Landherr. Mother was 

consistently engaged in therapy with her and made progress. Mother told 

Landherr that she had not been using any illicit substances and initially 

submitted to drug screens proved by Landherr. Later, Mother stopped agreeing 

to take drug screens offered by Landherr. On July 6 and August 8, 2018

Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on DCS drug screens, and she 

refused to take a drug screen on July 26, 2018, the first setting of the factfinding 

hearing. Landherr was not informed of Mother’s positive drug screens with 

DCS. Overall, FCM Tudor obtained thirty-five drug screens from Mother;

eleven were positive for methamphetamine. Mother failed to submit to twelve 

requested drug screens.4 Mother regularly “used methamphetamine throughout 

the CHINS case.” Appealed Order at 2.

[8] Mother was employed at a McDonald’s in February and March of 2018. She 

obtained a full-time position at another McDonald’s in September 2018 and 

 

4

 At the termination hearing, Mother asserted her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself and 

refused to answer whether she used methamphetamine. Tr. Vol. 2 at 115. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 6 of 12

had been employed there for three to four months. At the time of the 

termination hearing, Mother was living with her mother. Mother does not have 

a valid driver’s license and lacks transportation. Mother engaged in appropriate 

supervised visitation with Child, but her visitation never progressed to 

unsupervised visitation. Child has been with paternal grandparents since April 

2016, more than two and a half years, and is thriving.

[9] The Termination Order also contains the following conclusions:

94. Although Mother has recently engaged in therapy and has 

maintained employment, these conditions have been 

recent within the past eight (8) months. Prior to April of 

2018, Mother was minimally engaged in services to assist 

her in remedying the circumstances that led to the removal 

of [Child].

95. Mother also continues to use methamphetamine and has 

not established stable and suitable housing for the child.

....

97. By clear and convincing evidence, the court determines 

that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in [Child’s] removal and placement outside of 

Mother’s home will not be remedied.

Appealed Order at 6-7. The trial court also concluded that termination of the 

parent-child relationship was in Child’s best interests and that DCS had a 

satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment, which included adoption. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 7 of 12

at 7. Based on its conclusions, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental 

rights. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Mother seeks reversal of the termination of her parental rights. We note that 

“[a] parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is 

‘perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.’” In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 

625, 628 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 

N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005)). “[A]lthough parental rights are of a 

constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights 

when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental 

responsibilities.” In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 

Involuntary termination of parental rights is the most extreme sanction, and 

therefore “termination is intended as a last resort, available only when all other 

reasonable efforts have failed.” Id. Because “the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to 

establish a home and raise their children,” we apply a heightened standard of 

review to termination proceedings. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 (Ind. 

2016) (quoting In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 972 (Ind. 2014)). 

In considering whether the termination of parental rights is 

appropriate, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness 

credibility. We consider only the evidence and any reasonable 

inferences therefrom that support the judgment, and give due 

regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of 

the witnesses firsthand. Where a trial court has entered findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 8 of 12

court’s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. [Ind. Trial 

Rule 52(A)]. In evaluating whether the trial court’s decision to 

terminate parental rights 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. 

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229-30 (Ind. 2013) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). We note that Mother does not 

challenge any specific findings of fact, and therefore we accept the trial court’s 

findings of fact as true. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992) 

(“Because Madlem does not challenge the findings of the trial court, they must 

be accepted as correct.”); McMaster v. McMaster, 681 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1997) (“Father does not challenge these findings and we accept them as 

true.”). 

[11] A petition to terminate a parent-child relationship involving a CHINS must, 

among other things, allege:

(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.

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation 

of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing of the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 9 of 12

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

adjudicated a child in need of services.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must also allege that termination is in the 

best interests of the child. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(C). DCS must prove 

each element by “clear and convincing evidence.” R.S., 56 N.E.3d at 628; Ind. 

Code § 31-37-14-2. If the trial court finds that the allegations in the petition are 

true, the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-

2-8(a).

[12] Mother challenges only the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable 

probability that the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal or reasons for 

placement outside the home will not be remedied. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 

(b)(2)(B)(i). In reviewing this determination, we engage in a two-step analysis. 

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231. First, “we must ascertain what conditions led to 

[Child’s] placement and retention in foster care.” Id. Second, we “determine 

whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be 

remedied.” Id. (quoting In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1134 (Ind. 2010)). When 

the trial court makes its determination, it must evaluate a parent’s fitness at the 

time of the termination hearing, 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.” In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014) 

(quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). “A court may properly consider 

evidence of a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 10 of 12

neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and 

employment.” McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 

185, 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The trial court may consider services offered by 

DCS and the parent’s response to those services as evidence of whether 

conditions will be remedied. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 

1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “Where there are only temporary 

improvements and the pattern of conduct shows no overall progress, the court 

might reasonably find that under the circumstances, the problematic situation 

will not improve.” In re Involuntary Termination of Parent Child Relationship of 

A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). DCS “is not required to 

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

establish ‘that there is a reasonable probability that the parent’s behavior will 

not change.’” A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1157 (quoting In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 

236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)).

[13] Here, the reason for Child’s removal was Mother’s abuse of illegal drugs.

Mother argues that she completed a substance abuse assessment, twenty-four of 

her thirty-five drug screens were negative, she followed the recommendation of 

home-based case services, her therapist testified that she was attending sessions 

and making progress, she was living with her mother, and she was employed. 

Appellant’s Br. at 22. According to Mother, these accomplishments addressed 

DCS’s concerns. 

[14] Mother ignores the findings in support of the judgment. The trial court found

that although Child was removed from Mother in April 2016, Mother did not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 11 of 12

participate in services or substance abuse treatment at all, despite numerous 

referrals, until June 2017, when FCM Tudor took over the case. Even then, 

Mother’s referrals at two different service providers were ultimately dismissed

due to Mother’s failure to participate and lack of engagement. It was not until 

April 2018 that Mother started to attend therapy sessions and make progress. 

This was just two months before the first setting of the termination factfinding 

hearing. Significantly, while Mother initially submitted to her therapist’s drug 

screens, she stopped doing so. Further, her therapist was not informed of 

Mother’s positive drugs screens with DCS. Although Mother agreed to take

thirty-five drug screens offered by FCM Tudor, she tested positive for 

methamphetamine eleven times and refused twelve drug screens. Near the time 

of the first setting of the termination hearing, she tested positive for 

methamphetamine on July 6 and August 8, 2018, and refused a drug screen on 

July 26, 2018.5

[15] In light of Mother’s historic pattern of failing to participate in services and avail 

herself of drug treatment opportunities, as well as her consistent drug use, the 

trial court could reasonably conclude that any progress made by Mother was 

temporary and that there was a reasonable probability that her drug abuse 

would not be remedied. See A.H., 832 N.E.2d at 570. Balancing a parent’s 

 

5

 We note that recently another panel of this Court held that exhibits containing drug test results do not fall 

under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. Matter of L.S., 18A-JT-2881, 2019 WL 

2181225, at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. May 21, 2019). However, Mother did not object to the admission of the drug 

screen exhibits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-249 | July 31, 2019 Page 12 of 12

recent improvements against habitual patterns of conduct is a delicate balance 

that is entrusted “to the trial court, which has discretion to weigh a parent’s 

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

E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. Mother’s argument is merely an invitation to reweigh 

the evidence, which we must decline. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial 

court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for 

Child’s removal from Mother will not be remedied. We affirm the termination 

of Mother’s parental rights.

[16] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.