Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 1 of 20

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 APPELLANTS

Jeremy K. Nix

Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, LLP

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Termination of the 

Parent-Child Relationship of 

R.N. (Minor Child), 

and 

R.S. (Mother) and A.N. (Father),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

January 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

90A02-1606-JT-1459

Appeal from the Wells Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kenton W. 

Kiracofe, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

90C01-1507-JT-41

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 2 of 20

[1] R.S. (“Mother”) and A.N. (“Father”) (collectively “the Parents”) appeal the 

order of the Wells Circuit Court terminating their parental rights to their minor 

child, R.N. (“Daughter”). On appeal, the Parents claim that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusions that (1) there was a 

reasonable probability that the conditions which resulted in Child’s removal 

from their custody would not be remedied, and (2) that termination of the 

parent-child relationship was in the best interests of Daughter.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Daughter was born to Mother and Father in January 2013. On March 29, 2014, 

the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that 

Mother and Father had been using heroin and driving under the influence of 

heroin while Daughter and another child, Father’s sister, were in the vehicle.

The report also stated that Mother and Father were trading their food stamps 

for drugs. DCS personnel attempted to find Mother and Father to investigate 

this report but were unable to contact them after repeated attempts.

[4] On April 3, 2014, DCS went to an apartment in Decatur, Indiana, looking for 

Mother and Father. The person who answered the door denied that Mother and 

Father were at the apartment, but when DCS and law enforcement officers 

entered the apartment, they found Mother and Father. Mother and Father 

denied hiding from DCS and denied using drugs. They also submitted to oral 

swab drug tests. The police found alcohol, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 3 of 20

at the apartment. The results from the oral swab drug tests came back on April 

7, 2014, and showed that Mother tested positive for methadone and heroin and 

that Father tested positive for methadone. Accordingly, a DCS family case 

manager met with Mother and Father, who agreed to an informal adjustment

and to work with DCS without the formal intervention of the courts. They also 

agreed to submit to further drug tests. 

[5] On April 9, 2014, DCS filed an action with the trial court alleging that 

Daughter was a child in need of services (“CHINS”) when the Parents again 

tested positive for drug use.1 Daughter was removed from the Parents’ care, and 

on April 10, 2014, the Parents admitted that Daughter needed services. After a 

subsequent dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered both Parents to 

participate in various services, which included home-based case management, 

supervised visitations with Daughter, substance abuse assessments and 

following any recommendations based on that assessment, and random drug 

testing. Mother was additionally ordered to obtain her high school diploma or 

GED. The Parents were further ordered to maintain weekly contact with DCS, 

accept announced and unannounced home visits by DCS personnel, and 

provide DCS with verification of income and paternity.

 

1 Father tested positive for use of methamphetamine, hydromorphone, morphine, methadone, and heroin 

and also had trace amounts of amphetamine in his system. Mother tested positive for morphine and had trace 

amounts of heroin in her system.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 4 of 20

[6] At a six-month review hearing held on November 7, 2014, the trial court found 

that Father had not been participating in the ordered services. Some of this was 

attributable to Father’s incarceration in June and July of that year following his 

arrest for driving while suspended. Father had been referred to group therapy 

for his substance abuse issues, but had yet to start it due to his incarceration.

However, even when he was not incarcerated, Father frequently failed to 

participate in homebased services. Father was also unemployed and lacked 

stable housing. For her part, Mother had partially complied with the offered 

services but had missed several scheduled appointments with various service 

providers. Mother, too, was unemployed and lacked stable housing. She also 

admitted to taking pain medication for which she did not have a prescription, 

which was reflected in the results of three drugs screens that tested positive for 

low amounts of methadone, hydrocodone, and oxycodone.

[7] The trial court held a permanency hearing on January 7, 2015. At the hearing, 

Daughter’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) asked the court to change Daughter’s 

permanency plan from reunification with Parents to termination of their 

parental rights. The trial court found that Mother had recently tested positive 

for methamphetamine use and had failed to attend her therapy sessions, 

resulting in the therapy being cancelled. Although she had made some effort in 

the weeks leading to the hearing, Mother was still unemployed and had no 

source of income. Father had been released on probation, but a petition to 

revoke his probation had already been filed. Although Father completed his 

substance abuse assessment, he did not attend his group therapy sessions. He,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 5 of 20

too, was still unemployed and had no source of income. Still, the trial court 

denied the GAL’s request and continued with the permanency plan of 

reunification.

[8] On May 28, 2015, the trial court held another permanency hearing, again 

finding that the Parents had not fully complied with services or cooperated with 

DCS. Daughter was placed with Mother’s aunt, and the permanency plan 

remained reunification.

[9] After another permanency hearing held on September 8, 2015, the trial court 

changed the permanency plan from reunification with Parents to termination of 

their parental rights. The court found that daughter was doing well in her 

placement with Mother’s aunt. The trial court noted that Mother had not been 

fully compliant with the ordered services, although she had been attending 

visitation regularly. However, her compliance with drug testing was sporadic, 

and she tested positive in July for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC.

2

Moreover, Mother’s substance abuse counseling had been canceled because of 

her failure to attend. Father had visited Daughter only once between January 

and April of 2015. After April, he had again been incarcerated following the 

revocation of his probation. After being released from incarceration at the end 

of June 2015, Father attended four of five scheduled visitations with Daughter.

However, his outpatient substance abuse treatment had been terminated due to 

 

2

 THC is the abbreviated name for tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active chemical in marijuana. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 6 of 20

noncompliance. He also had not submitted to all the required drug screens and 

had recently tested positive for THC. 

[10] On July 27, 2015, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother and Father’s 

parental rights. A termination hearing was held on December 29, 2015. On 

April 28, 2016, the trial court terminated the Parents’ parental rights to 

Daughter by issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law which provided in 

relevant part as follows: 

2. [Daughter] has been removed from the care of [Mother] and 

[Father] for over 15 of the most recent 22 months. The child was 

detained by the Department of Child Services on April 9, 2014.

3. [Daughter] has not returned home on a trial home visit to 

neither [Mother] nor [Father] since April 9, 2014.

4. [Daughter] has been under a Dispositional Order from a 

hearing on April 22, 2014 with an order date of May 22, 2014.

5. [Mother] has demonstrated an inability to adequately meet 

the basic needs of her children for food, clothing, and shelter for 

one and a half years. She has been incarcerated for portions of 

the case, is presently on home detention for the crime of dealing 

in a lookalike substance, lives in her grandfather’s house free of 

rent and obligation, and was close to obtaining unsupervised time 

with her daughter when she again tested positive for substances.

While she was able to find employment during some portions of 

the case, she could not maintain a source of income to provide 

housing, transportation, or work on budgeting.

6. [Mother] has demonstrated a pattern of not completing 

services she was ordered to participate in, including attending not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 7 of 20

participating consistently in home-based services meant to 

address employment, housing, budgeting, parenting, and housing 

and transportation. She did submit to random drug screens when 

she could be located, but consistently tested positive for 

substances she had no prescription for and for all types of illegal 

drugs. She completed an evaluation at Park Center, initiated 

services with Park Center, but was discharged from Park Center 

for failing to attend and complete services meant for substance 

abuse recovery and for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder.

7. [Mother] has demonstrated a pattern of an inability to 

adequately parent her children. [Mother] admitted that she has 

struggled with mental health since she was diagnosed with Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder and could no longer afford the 

medication for its treatment and has no future plan for how to 

parent [Daughter] except to say that she will do what she has to.

8. There is a reasonable probability that because of [Mother]’s 

inability to adequately meet the basic needs of her children and 

her pattern of not completing services she was ordered to

participate in, that the conditions that resulted in the child’s 

removal from the home have not been and will not be remedied.

9. There is a reasonable probability that because of [Mother]’s 

struggle with mental illness and substance abuse that the reasons 

for the child’s placement outside of the home will not be

remedied.

10. [Father] has demonstrated an inability to adequately meet 

the basic needs of his children for food, clothing, and shelter for 

one and one half years. He has not had housing suitable for the 

child during that time, has been underemployed, and has been 

incarcerated for approximately one-third of the child in need of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 8 of 20

services case. He has consistently tested positive for substances 

he has no prescription for and also for illegal substances.

11. [Father] has demonstrated a pattern of not completing 

services he was ordered to participate in. He participated in 

visitation and home-based services at times when he was not 

incarcerated during the case. He did complete two assessments at 

Park Center for substance abuse treatment. It was recommended 

that he complete treatment. He did not complete treatment, so 

the second assessment was necessary for him to be accepted into 

Park Center again.

12. There is a reasonable probability that because of [Father]’s 

inability to adequately meet the basic needs of his child and his 

pattern of not completing services he was ordered to participate 

in, that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal from 

the home have not been and will not be remedied.

13. There is a reasonable probability that because of [Father]’s 

struggle with substance dependency that the reasons for the 

child’s placement outside of the home will not be remedied.

14. Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best 

interest of the child.

15. [Daughter] has been adjudicated [a] child[] in need of 

services, has a current need for placement, has been in placement 

for over fifteen months of the last twenty-two months, and the 

she has not been reunified with either her mother or father.

16. There is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the 

child. She is in a proposed adoptive home in licensed foster care.

Appellant’s App. pp. 45-46. Mother and Father now appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 9 of 20

Termination of Parental Rights

[11] The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents but instead 

to protect their children. In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 874, 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 

Although parental rights have a constitutional dimension, the law allows for 

their termination when the parties are unable or unwilling to meet their 

responsibilities as parents. Id. Indeed, parental interests must be subordinated to 

the child’s interests in determining the proper disposition of a petition to 

terminate parental rights. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2009). 

[12] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) provides that a petition to terminate 

parental rights must 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 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 10 of 20

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

of the child.

[13] DCS must prove each element by clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Code § 

31-37-14-2; G.Y., 904 N.E.2d at 1261. Because Section 4(b)(2)(B) is written in 

the disjunctive, the trial court is required to find that only one prong of 

subsection (b)(2)(B) has been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re 

A.K., 924 N.E.3d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

[14] Clear and convincing evidence need not establish that the continued custody of 

the parent is wholly inadequate for the child’s very survival. Bester v. Lake Cnty. 

Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). It is instead 

sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s emotional 

and physical development are put at risk by the parent’s custody. Id. If the court 

finds the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the parentchild relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).

[15] We have long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving the 

termination of parental rights. In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id. We 

consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the trial 

court’s judgment. Id. 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. Id. Clear error is that which leaves us 

with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. J.M. v. Marion 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 11 of 20

Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 802 N.E.2d 40, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. 

denied.

I. Conditions Resulting in Child’s Removal

[16] Mother and Father attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial 

court’s decision to terminate their parental rights. First, they claim that the trial 

court erred in determining that there was a reasonable probability that the 

conditions which led to Daughter’s removal from the Parents would not be 

remedied.

[17] When deciding whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

resulting in a child’s removal or continued placement outside of a parent’s care 

will not be remedied, the trial court must determine a parent’s fitness to care for 

the child at the time of the termination hearing while also taking into 

consideration evidence of changed circumstances. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child 

Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156-57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, the trial court 

may disregard efforts made only shortly before termination and weigh more 

heavily a parent’s history of conduct prior to those efforts. In re K.T.K., 989 

N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013). 

[18] Both Parents’ argument on this issue consists of attacking several of the 

conclusions set forth in the trial court’s termination order. When the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 12 of 20

enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon,

3 we apply a two-tiered standard 

of review: we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and 

then determine whether the findings support the judgment. In re D.B., 942 

N.E.2d at 871. 

[19] Mother first attacks the trial court’s conclusion that she “ha[d] been 

incarcerated for portions of the case.” Appellant’s App. p. 45. Mother argues 

that the trial court made no finding that she was incarcerated for a portion of 

the case and instead found only that she was convicted and sentenced to one 

year on probation and placed on home detention monitoring for 180 days.

Mother, however, does not deny that she was arrested and charged with the 

crime of dealing in a look-alike substance. Indeed, she testified at the hearing 

that she spent four days in jail because of this charge. Tr. p. 44.

[20] To the extent that Mother’s argument is that the trial court never made a 

specific “finding” regarding her stay in jail, this is not dispositive. If a trial court 

mischaracterizes a factual finding as a conclusion, or vice versa, we look past 

such labels to the substance of the trial court’s judgment. Fraley v. Minger, 829 

N.E.2d 476, 482 (Ind. 2005). Here, the trial court made a factual statement 

regarding Mother’s incarceration, and this statement is supported by evidence 

 

3 See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(c) (amended effective July 1, 2012 to require the court to enter findings of fact 

when terminating parental rights or dismissing a petition to terminate parental rights). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 13 of 20

in the record. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s determination

that Mother was incarcerated for a portion of the case.

[21] Mother next argues that the trial court wrongly concluded that she “could not 

maintain a source of income to provide housing, transportation, or work on 

budgeting,” Appellant’s App. p. 45, because she was employed at the time of 

the termination hearing. However, at the hearing, Mother testified that she had 

been employed only sporadically. Specifically, she testified that she worked at 

Pretzel’s in January and February of 2015, then worked for “a couple of days”

at CBS before quitting because she “wasn’t comfortable with the job or the 

people.” Tr. pp. 35-36. At the time of the December 29, 2015 termination 

hearing, Mother had been employed at Inventure since the end of November of 

that year. Given Mother’s sporadic employment history, we cannot say that the 

trial court clearly erred in concluding that Mother had been unable to maintain 

a source of income.4

[22] Mother next attacks the trial court’s conclusion 6, quoted above, that she failed 

to complete services and tested positive for drug use. She claims that had “good 

attendance” in her group therapy sessions and had negative drug screens during 

the spring and early summer of 2015 and again immediately before the 

 

4 Mother also complains that the trial court erred in concluding that she had no source of income to provide 

for housing. Mother notes that she had been living with her grandfather rent-free. However, this lasted only 

six months. Tr. p. 35. Mother testified that she and Father had moved in with Father’s father only a week 

before the termination hearing. None of this contradicts the trial court’s conclusion that Mother herself had 

insufficient income to afford housing. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 14 of 20

termination hearing. However, the trial court was well within its discretion to 

disregard any improvements Mother made immediately before the termination 

hearing and instead weigh more heavily her history of conduct. In re K.T.K., 

989 N.E.2d at 1234. Moreover, Mother does not actually claim that any part of 

conclusion 6 is factually incorrect. The evidence before the trial court clearly 

supported the trial court’s conclusion that Mother had a pattern of not 

completing the ordered services, consistently tested positive for drug use, and 

failed to complete the services intended to treat her substance abuse and mental 

health issues.

[23] Mother next attacks the trial court’s conclusion 7, in which the court 

determined that Mother had “demonstrated a pattern of an inability to 

adequately parent her children,” struggled with mental health issues, and had 

no future plan to parent Daughter. Mother’s entire argument on this matter 

consists of the following: “However, Mother had been consistent in her 

parenting time with the R.N. throughout the CHINS case. Mother had been 

participating in reunification services and was benefiting from them.” This bald 

assertion of error falls short of making a cogent appellate argument. See Ind. 

Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring appellate arguments to be supported by 

cogent reasoning); Sumbry v. Pera, 795 N.E.2d 470, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) 

(noting that arguments not supported by cogent reasoning are waived).

[24] Furthermore, we note that ample evidence was before the trial court that 

Mother demonstrated an inability to address her substance abuse issues. She 

was arrested for dealing just two months before the termination hearing, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 15 of 20

she tested positive for oxycodone the week prior to the termination hearing.

Clearly, Mother was not benefitting from the services of which she did take 

advantage. It is true that the trial court found, at the May 28, 2015 review 

hearing, that Mother had been participating in and benefitting from 

reunification services. However, this fact alone does not negate the other 

serious, unresolved substance abuse issues Mother still had that demonstrated 

her inability to adequately parent her daughter. Mother also does not deny that 

there was evidence before the court that she suffered from post-traumatic stress 

disorder. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court’s conclusions regarding 

Mother’s mental health and substance abuse is clearly erroneous.

[25] Father also attacks the trial court’s conclusions, specifically conclusions 10 and 

11 quoted above, regarding his inability to meet Daughter’s basic needs, his 

substance abuse, his employment, and failure to complete services. Father 

claims that he has been employed throughout the CHINS case, except for when 

he was incarcerated, and worked for several employers. However, the trial court 

did not state that Father had been unemployed; it found that Father had been 

incarcerated for almost one-third of the CHINS case and was underemployed 

when he was not incarcerated. This, combined with Father’s continued abuse of 

drugs, supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father had demonstrated an 

inability to meet Daughter’s basic needs. Nor are we persuaded that Father had 

adequate housing simply because he was living with Mother’s grandfather or 

his own father. In short, Father had not completed the ordered services, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 16 of 20

continued to test positive for drug use, did not have stable housing, and was 

either incarcerated or underemployed when not incarcerated.

[26] The condition which led to Daughter’s removal was the Parents’ drug use.

During the CHINS case, neither parent successfully completed substance abuse 

treatment, both parents repeatedly missed drug screens or tested positive for 

drug use, and Mother was twice convicted for drug offenses. Clearly, both 

parents have continuing substance abuse issues that have hampered their ability 

to adequately parent their daughter. Considering only the evidence that favors 

the trial court’s termination order, we conclude that there was sufficient 

evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that there was a reasonable 

probability that the conditions which led to Daughter’s removal from the 

Parent’s care would not be remedied. See In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2014) (concluding that evidence supported trial court’s finding that the 

conditions that led to children’s removal, specifically parents’ substance abuse, 

would not be remedied, where mother’s substance abuse worsened, mother 

failed to participate in substance abuse treatment, and father abused drugs when 

the children were placed with him and failed to complete substance abuse 

treatment), trans. denied.

II. The Best Interests of the Child

[27] We also reject the Parents’ argument that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the trial court’s conclusion that termination of the parent-child 

relationship was in Daughter’s best interest. In determining what is in the best 

interests of the child, the trial court must look beyond the factors identified by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 17 of 20

DCS and look to the totality of the evidence. A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158. The 

trial court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the child, and 

the court need not wait until the child are irreversibly harmed before 

terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. Moreover, the recommendation by 

the case manager or 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. Id.

[28] Here, the GAL testified that, based on her twenty years of experience, it was 

her opinion that termination of the parent-child relationship was in Daughter’s 

best interests. The GAL’s testimony on why she believed this adequately 

summarizes this case:

In this situation, the parents haven’t stopped abusing substances. 

We have 30 dirty drug screens through November that I’m aware 

without looking through the pile of drug screens that have been 

submitted into evidence. [Father] hasn’t even done substance 

abuse treatment to try to deal with his substance abuse issue and 

there are numerous different drugs that he has tested positive for. 

[Mother] has at least tried. She was working on the issue but 

unfortunately she started using again at the end of when she was 

finishing her group treatment and continued using through 

November we had some positive drug screens and now we have 

another one from just last week with [Mother]. The substance use 

and abuse with both of the parents is pervasive and its affecting 

every aspect of their lives which ultimately affects the way that 

they could maintain any kind of stability or try to possibly parent 

a child especially a toddler child who rel[ie]s on parents for 

everything still at this point and time. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 18 of 20

They are very young. They haven’t been able to maintain any

kind of employment history. [Mother] even testified that she 

hasn’t been able to maintain a job for more than a month. I think 

with [Father] it was a couple of months that he maintained a job. 

They’ve been living off of other people in friends[’] and 

relatives[’] homes so they don’t they have any means of 

transportation. They have no way to provide for themselves and 

care for themselves let alone care for their child. Without jobs, 

without stable income, without stable housing, without any kind 

of transportation, without having driver’s license and having lots 

of bills for [Father] to be able to even get a driver’s license, they 

don’t have any way to properly care for themselves, let alone this 

child whose every need depends on a parent and that’s not even 

addressing the real issue that got us here which is the substance 

abuse. 

They have not been able to adequately deal with the fact that 

they have real substance abuse problems. They’re not short term 

problems; they’re long term problems and again the myriad of 

substances that they test positive for it’s not just prescription 

drugs, its illegal substances. There’s been cocaine and 

methamphetamines and heroin. Several of the drug tests have 

morphine, they have heroin in a couple of the drug tests too, the 

metabolite from heroin, but morphine is a metabolite for heroin. 

There are prescription drugs that at times one or the other has 

tested positive for so we haven’t been able to remedy anything 

that got us involved in this case to begin with. 

They are no close[r] to getting housing or maintaining a job than 

they were when this child was removed. They have to start 

substance abuse treatment. [Father] hasn’t even done it. [Mother]

truthfully has to start almost back at the beginning because she’s 

been using since July of this year and she was finishing up her 

treatment in July and August of this year. There’s been no benefit 

from the services. They can’t talk about a reasonable plan or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 19 of 20

work on budgeting or housing because they haven’t even been 

able to maintain stable employment so we don’t have an option. 

This child has been removed from her parents’ care for 20 

months and in a week, it will be 21 months that she will have 

been removed. Friday this child turns 3. At that point and time, 

she will have been removed 21 out of 36 months of her life. So 

she has spent more of her life in licensed foster care, a short 

period of time in relative placement, than she has living in the 

home with either of her two parents and so it’s time. We’ve given 

them ample opportunity because they were young, the 

Department gave them a longer opportunity to try and fix the 

problems and they just haven’t been able to do it. As sad as it is, 

it’s the best thing for this child. She needs to have stability. She 

needs to know where that stability is going to come from and her 

parents cannot provide that now and haven’t been able to show 

in the last 20 months that they could provide it ever so that’s 

where we are today. Its best for her to be able to move on and 

have a forever family and be adopted.

Tr. pp. 106-07 (paragraph breaks added). Given this testimony, we cannot say 

that the trial court erred in determining that termination of the parent-child 

relationship was in the best interests of Daughter.

Conclusion

[29] DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that 

there was a reasonable probability that the reason for the child’s removal from 

her parents — their use and abuse of drugs — would not be remedied. Instead, 

ample evidence suggested that the Parents still struggled with their substance 

abuse problems. The evidence was also sufficient to support the trial court’s 

conclusion that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1606-JT-1459 | January 30, 2017 Page 20 of 20

interests of Daughter, who had been in foster care for over a year and a half, 

because the Parents still had not demonstrated that they could overcome their 

substance abuse problems and adequately provide for their child. Accordingly, 

we affirm the order of the trial court terminating Mother and Father’s parental 

rights to their daughter.

[30] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.