Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 1 of 21

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

Harold E. Amstutz

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Catherine Brizzi

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of A.G. (Child) and S.R. 

(Mother),

S.R. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 20, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-JT-557

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Faith Graham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D03-1909-JT-128

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 2 of 21

[1] S.R. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to A.G. 

(“Child”). Mother argues the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) did not 

present sufficient evidence to support some of the trial court’s findings. Mother 

also contends the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusions that the 

conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be 

remedied and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best 

interests. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother is the biological mother of Child, born April 4, 2017. On April 30, 

2018, DCS received a report that C.G., II (“Father”)1 was “smoking spice in 

[Child’s] presence.” (App. Vol. II at 12.) After an investigation, DCS 

determined the report was untrue, as Child was not with Father at the time 

because Mother, who was homeless, left Child in Paternal Grandmother’s care. 

On May 19, 2018, DCS received a second report involving Child, which alleged 

substance abuse at Paternal Grandmother’s home, where Child was living. 

Police arrested Paternal Grandmother for substance offenses and placed her in 

Community Corrections. Mother took Child to Maternal Step-grandfather’s 

home because Mother was “still unemployed and homeless.” (Id.)

1 The parental rights of Father were also terminated. Father does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 3 of 21

[3] On June 4, 2018, DCS received a third report regarding Child’s care, this time 

alleging Father was using illegal drugs. An investigation revealed Father had 

been arrested on charges related to substance abuse and evading law 

enforcement. Additionally, DCS discovered that Paternal Grandfather and 

Paternal Step-grandmother lived with Maternal Step-grandmother and Child. 

Paternal Grandfather was involved in another DCS case and had recently tested 

positive for methamphetamine. Child was subsequently tested for the presence 

of illegal substances and tested positive for methamphetamine. At the time, 

Mother was still unemployed, homeless, and unable to care for Child. Mother 

had also been diagnosed with mental illness and was not in treatment or taking 

medication therefor. 

[4] On June 7, 2018, the trial court issued an emergency order placing Child under 

DCS’s wardship. DCS placed Child with a foster family, with whom Child has 

remained throughout these proceedings. DCS filed a petition to adjudicate 

Child as a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) on June 7, 2018. The trial 

court held a fact-finding hearing on the petition on August 9, 2018, and Mother 

admitted she was unable to care for Child.2

 On August 17, 2018, the trial court 

adjudicated Child a CHINS. On September 27, 2018, the trial court held a 

dispositional hearing and issued an order requiring Mother to participate in 

certain services including home-based case management, mental health 

2 Father was incarcerated and did not attend the fact-finding hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 4 of 21

assessment and recommended treatment, parenting assessment and parenting 

education, visitation with Child, drug screens, and individual therapy.

[5] Mother was granted supervised visitation with Child and did not progress to 

unsupervised visitation. The visitation supervisor reported Mother was often 

unprepared for visits, which resulted in visits ending early because Mother did 

not bring diapers or food for Child. Mother also was often distracted by her 

phone or by fighting with her boyfriend. The visitation supervisor testified that 

when Mother’s parenting behavior was corrected or redirected, Mother would 

become defensive.

[6] Throughout the CHINS proceedings, Mother had approximately three different 

jobs and lived in five different locations. Mother applied for social security

disability benefits based on her mental health diagnosis but did not attend a 

follow up appointment and therefore was automatically denied. Mother has 

not completed the appeal paperwork to obtain social security disability. DCS 

helped Mother and her boyfriend get an apartment, but they were ultimately 

evicted for non-payment of rent. While in the apartment, Mother would allow 

homeless people to use her shower and another person staying at the residence 

had to be transported to the hospital for an alleged overdose.

[7] Mother attended some home-based case management appointments, which 

focused on budgeting and other home management skills. Mother refused to 

learn to manage her money and would give her boyfriend her paychecks to put 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 5 of 21

into a savings account that she could not access. Mother did not know what 

boyfriend did with her money. 

[8] Based on Mother’s noncompliance with services, DCS filed a petition to 

terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child on September 12, 2019. On 

November 25, 2019, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. 

On February 21, 2020, the trial court issued an order terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to Child.

Discussion and Decision

[9] We review termination of parental rights with great deference. In re K.S., 750 

N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We will not reweigh evidence or judge 

credibility of witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), 

trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences 

most favorable to the judgment. Id. In deference to the juvenile court’s unique 

position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a 

parent’s rights only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1161 (2002). 

[10] “The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In 

re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. A trial court must 

subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children when evaluating 

the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d at 837. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 6 of 21

The right to raise one’s own children should not be terminated solely because 

there is a better home available for the children, id., but parental rights may be 

terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet parental 

responsibilities. Id. at 836.

[11] To terminate a parent-child relationship, the State must allege and prove:

(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.

(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). The State must provide clear and convincing proof 

of these allegations. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009), reh’g 

denied. If the court finds the allegations in the petition are true, it must 

terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 7 of 21

1. Challenged Findings

[12] When, as here, a judgment contains specific findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of 

Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). We determine whether the 

evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. 

Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to 

support them either directly or by inference.” Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 

102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the juvenile court’s 

decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.

[13] As an initial matter, Mother argues:

The courts [sic] findings as to the Mother did not accurately 

reflect the totality of evidence presented in the exhibits and 

testimony. Findings #10 through #20 and #22 through #26 are 

inaccurate as they present in detail any and all negative 

information about [Mother], without presenting the positive 

information in the same manner.

(Br. of Appellant at 15.) However, Mother does not cite the positive evidence 

the trial court allegedly did not consider, and she does not make a specific 

argument as to how these findings are clearly erroneous. “Bald assertions of 

error unsupported by either cogent argument or citation to authority results in 

waiver of any error on review.” Pasha v. State, 524 N.E.2d 310, 314 (Ind. 1988). 

Waiver notwithstanding, Mother does not contest the factual accuracy of the 

findings; instead she challenges the set of facts upon which the trial court based 

its conclusions. On appeal, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 8 of 21

credibility of witnesses, In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265, and thus her arguments 

regarding those findings fail.

[14] Mother also contends “[m]any of the courts [sic] findings (#[27-35]) are 

exclusively regarding the father and should not be considered as to whether the 

Mother’s rights should be terminated.” (Br. of Appellant at 15.) However, she 

does not cite the record or case law regarding why we should not look at all of 

the trial court’s findings to consider whether DCS established the required 

elements to terminate her parental rights, and thus her argument is waived for 

failure to make a cogent argument. See Indiana App. Rule 48(A)(6) (issue must 

be supported by cogent argument, including citations to the record and relevant 

case law); and see Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 373 

n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (failure to present a cogent argument waives the issue 

on appeal), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, we note that the trial court 

did not solely rely on the findings as to Father in making their decision to 

terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights and, as we discuss infra, there 

were sufficient findings to support the trial court’s conclusions regarding the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights absent the findings concerning Father.

[15] Mother also challenges Finding 21, which states, “Mother was fairly compliant

with drug screens until August of 2019.” (App. Vol. II at 15.) Mother contends 

“Finding #21 is not a fair description of the drug screen evidence.” (Br. of 

Appellant at 15.) The Family Case Manager (“FCM”) testified that, prior to 

August 2019, Mother “submitted to probably about ninety-five percent of her 

drug screens” but was then “suspended due to non-compliance” in August 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 9 of 21

2019. (Tr. Vol. II at 142-3.) Mother’s argument is an invitation for us to 

reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do 

See In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or 

judge credibility of witnesses).

[16] Therefore, we conclude, based on the FCM’s testimony, the evidence supported 

Finding 21. Mother does not properly challenge any of the trial court’s other 

findings, so they stand as proven. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687

(Ind. 1992) (unchallenged findings accepted as true on appeal).

2. Reasonable Probability that Conditions Not Remedied

[17] A trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child at the time of the 

termination hearing. In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

Evidence of a parent’s pattern of unwillingness or lack of commitment to 

address parenting issues and to cooperate with services “demonstrates the 

requisite reasonable probability” that conditions will not change. Lang v. Starke 

Cty. OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Mother 

argues DCS did not present sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

findings and those findings do not support its conclusion that the conditions 

under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied.3

3 Mother also seems to challenge the services offered to her by DCS. She contends DCS did not make 

referrals to certain services and “[i]t is not enough that the DCS just offer standard, boilerplate, one size fits 

all, services. Every case requires the DCS to tailor services so they will help the parent.” (Br. of Appellant at 

19.) However, Mother cannot challenge the services provided by DCS to attack a termination order. See In 

re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 148 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“a failure to provide services does not serve as a basis 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 10 of 21

[18] The trial court found Child was removed from Mother’s care because Mother 

was “in an unstable living situation, unemployed, and unable to care for 

[Child].” (App. Vol. II at 12.) Additionally, “Mother had been previously

diagnosed with bipolar disorder but was not in treatment or taking medication.” 

(Id.) Leading up to the adjudication of Child as a CHINS, Mother left Child in 

the care of various family members because of her housing instability. 

However, these family members consumed illegal drugs, including in Child’s 

presence.

[19] To support its conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the 

conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be 

remedied, the trial court found:

10. Mother was referred to home-based case management 

services to assist her with housing, employment, accessing 

resources, and establishing appropriate boundaries. Mother 

failed to make sustainable progress in home-based case 

management. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from two 

providers and is currently working with a third provider. Mother 

struggled to stay awake during some sessions, stayed in bed 

during some sessions, and missed many sessions. Providers 

found it difficult to schedule appointments and communicate 

with Mother. Mother frequently double-booked appointments 

despite case managers [sic] work with her on this issue. Mother 

on which to directly attack a termination order as contrary to law”); and see In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“a parent may not sit idly by without asserting a need or desire for services and then 

successfully argue that he was denied services to assist him with his parenting”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 11 of 21

was not honest with providers about her progress. Mother also 

had anger issues and made threats to one provider.

11. Mother failed to demonstrate that she could provide [Child] 

with a stable living situation. When the CHINS case started, 

[M]other was living with different friends and relatives, then she 

and her boyfriend rented from a friend. After they were evicted, 

[M]other and her boyfriend lived with her boss for a period of 

time. In October of 2018, Mother and her boyfriend obtained an 

apartment with financial assistance of DCS. Mother had very 

little furniture, only one or two toys, and limited clothing for 

[Child]. Case management assisted Mother with upkeep and 

maintenance of the apartment and helped Mother work with the 

landlord to make sure bills were being paid. After several 

months in the apartment, Mother and her boyfriend moved into

a bigger apartment and their rent increased from $550 to $750. 

Mother and her boyfriend quickly got behind on rent and case 

management worked with Mother on options. Mother failed to 

follow through with paperwork and was evicted in July of 2019 

for failing to pay rent and disturbing the neighbors. After being 

evicted, Mother declined to stay in a shelter and moved to a 

friend’s house out of town. Mother returned to Lafayette after a 

short time and again stayed with different friends and relatives, 

one of whom recently tested positive for drugs. Mother refused 

to disclose her current housing situation to DCS so that the 

appropriateness for [Child] could be determined. At the 

evidentiary hearing, Mother indicated that she is living with a 

new boyfriend and his relatives. Mother’s new boyfriend has 

children, but they live with his mother and sister.

12. Mother struggled to maintain the cleanliness of the 

apartment and it often smelled of smoke and cats. Mother also 

allowed inappropriate people to stay in the home, such as 

allowing homeless people to shower. One of the friend’s [sic] 

Mother allowed to stay in the apartment overdosed. Mother and 

her boyfriend also allowed a minor to stay in the home with them 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 12 of 21

for several months until police issued a trespass warning against 

the minor.

13. Mother failed to demonstrate that she could financially 

provide for [Child] through employment or obtaining disability. 

Throughout the CHINS case, Mother struggled to maintain 

employment for more than a few weeks or months. Mother was 

unemployed from April of 2019 until October of 2019. Mother 

does not have a high school diploma, which limits her 

employment opportunities. Mother is currently unemployed.

14. After Mother completed a psychological evaluation, it was 

recommended that Mother apply for social security disability. 

Mother completed a phone appointment but failed to attend a 

follow up appointment. Mother requested appeal paperwork but 

failed to complete it despite multiple prompts and offers of 

assistance from her case manager.

15. For most of the CHINS case, [M]other was completely 

dependent on her boyfriend for scheduling, financial decisions, 

emotional regulation, and parenting [Child]. Mother gave all her 

paychecks to her boyfriend, who would put the money into a 

savings account that Mother could not access. Case 

management worked with Mother and her boyfriend to budget 

their money, but Mother and her boyfriend were unable to 

establish where their money was spent. When they received a 

tax refund, Mother and her boyfriend spent all the money and 

did not pay towards rent even though both of them had lost their 

jobs. When the relationship ended in July of 2019, Mother 

struggled and did not believe she could make it on her own. 

Mother wanted her ex-boyfriend to continue to control her 

finances and wanted him to be the payee if she obtained 

disability.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 13 of 21

16. Case management also worked with Mother on her hygiene. 

Despite many prompts, Mother was often observed to have body 

odor and greasy hair. Mother would go weeks without 

showering even though she had access to a shower. Mother also 

failed to wash her clothes. Mother struggled with hygiene issues 

with [Child] as well.

17. Mother completed a mental health assessment with Child 

and Family Partners in October of 2018. Mother reported 

domestic violence in her relationship with Father and disclosed 

losing two (2) pregnancies to domestic violence incidents. 

Mother also disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather and a family 

member. The assessment recommended that Mother have a 

medical and psychological evaluation to determine whether a 

disability diagnosis was warranted. Case management was also 

recommended as it was noted that Mother struggled with keeping 

track of appointments, setting a routine, and incorporating 

“unforeseeable events into her responsibilities without causing 

undue stress.” It was also noted that Mother “appeared to have 

minimal [sic] slower cognitive processing” but it did not interfere 

with her ability to participate in the assessment. Mother reported 

that her learning disability did not impact her ability to function 

in daily life.

18. Mother completed the psychological evaluation in March of 

2019 and the report was completed in April of 2019. Mother 

appeared at the psychological evaluation wearing pajamas, 

smelling unpleasant, and having greasy and unclean hair. 

Mother was diagnosed with Intellectual Disability Mild and 

Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. 

The testing indicated that Mother “may not understand 

information the way others do, and she may take significantly 

more time than her peers to learn new information.” It was also 

noted that Mother would likely struggle to understand 

information regardless of how it was presented to her. Mother’s 

reading level was determined to be a 5th grade level. It was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 14 of 21

reported that Mother’s “cognitive abilities are very likely 

impeding her ability to function effectively, and independently, in 

her daily life.” Mother has become dependent on others for 

support and this dependency combined with her poor social 

judgement place Mother as a high risk of entering and struggling 

to leave unhealthy relationships. It was recommended that 

Mother be provided with written material at a 5th grade level and 

that it be explained thoroughly. It was recommended that 

Mother be asked to say what she heard in her own words and 

that modeling and repetition be used to teach new skills. 

Therapy and case management were recommended for Mother 

and it was also suggested that she apply for disability.

19. DCS addressed Mother’s cognitive struggles by having 

home-based case management work with [M]other to understand 

all written materials and written materials presented were a level 

that Mother should have been able to understand. Case 

managers noted that Mother had a short attention span and 

would get restless and fidgety after ten (10) minutes. Further, if 

too much direction was given, Mother would get defensive and 

lash out at case managers. To address this, case management 

was done in little segments to help [M]other process better.

20. Mother participated in individual therapy with Child and 

Family Partners to address past trauma and relationships, 

scheduling, developing positive supports, and unstable 

employment. Mother participating [sic] fairly consistently from 

December of 2018 to March of 2019. Mother then participated 

in individual therapy with Valley Oaks from May to October of 

2019. Therapy focused on communication skills, healthy 

relationships, and anger management. Mother attended four (4) 

sessions and made minimal progress. Mother was discharged in 

October of 2019 due to missing seven (7) sessions. Mother 

indicated that she did not go to therapy because she did not like 

to talk to people about her feelings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 15 of 21

21. Mother was fairly compliant with drug screens until August 

of 2019.

22. Mother participated in parenting education with three 

different providers. Goals included improving bonding and 

attachment, understanding the importance of stability and 

appropriate relationships, and understanding age development 

and milestones. Cases [sic] managers also worked with Mother 

on nutrition, safety, cleanliness, and hygiene. Information was 

demonstrated and modeled by case managers and written 

materials were also provided.

23. Mother never progressed beyond semi-supervised visits with 

[Child]. Mother missed multiple visits and some visits had to be 

ended early due to lack of food and supplies. When Mother 

attended visits, she was loving and affectionate to [Child]. 

Providers noted that Mother failed to supervise [Child], became 

angry and yelled at [Child], had to be reminded to put her phone 

away, and failed to clean [Child] appropriately. Mother tried to 

get [Child] to stay in bed with her during visits and Mother had 

to be reminded to get up and interact with [Child]. Mother 

raised her voice at [Child] causing [Child] to withdraw, then 

Mother would get frustrated. The provider noted that Mother 

would tell [Child] to “sit,” “stay,” and “no” as if she was a dog. 

One visit was ended early after Mother yelled at [Child] and 

could not de-escalate after being warned. Mother then threw her 

phone, which upset [Child].

24. Mother is currently allowed to visit with [Child] for up to 

seven (7) hours per week but she usually does not utilize the 

entire amount. The visits are approximately 75-80% supervised 

in the community and the provider remains within sight or 

hearing distance of Mother. Mother continues to be unprepared 

with supplies and she is distracted by her phone during visits. 

Despite months of supervised visits and parenting education, 

Mother continues to struggle with basic care of [Child], such as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 16 of 21

providing food and supplies, appropriately feeding [Child], and 

remembering to change her diaper without being prompted. The 

provider recommends reducing Mother’s visits due to Mother 

missing visits and ending visits early. She recommends visit [sic] 

occur only one (1) time per week until Mother can consistently 

visit and provide the necessary supplies.

25. Mother admitted that she does not have the means to care 

for [Child] and she is not ready to have [Child] in her care.

(App. Vol. II at 13-16.)

[20] Mother argues the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that the 

reasons for Child’s removal from her care would not be remedied because the 

trial court did not determine Mother was “unfit” and “whether this case had 

reached the ‘last resort stage’ by the time of the trial.” (Br. of Appellant at 16.) 

In support of her argument, Mother cites Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1989), reh’g denied, in which a panel of our court agreed with a 

mother’s argument that “factors such as low income or inadequate housing are 

by themselves not sufficient grounds to terminate parental rights.” Id. at 285. 

However, the court also recognized the well-established standard of our review

that “termination may be based on evidence of recurring events up until the 

time of removal.” Id. Here, the termination of Mother’s parental rights to 

Child was based not only on her lack of stable housing and employment, but 

also her lack of progress in services and inability to parent Child properly 

during visits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 17 of 21

[21] Mother also relies on Matter of M.I., 127 N.E.3d 1168 (Ind. 2019), in which our 

Indiana Supreme Court held that a mother’s parental rights could not be 

terminated based on the “singular conclusion” of that “[m]other’s ongoing 

inability to secure suitable housing[.]” Id. at 1171. However, the facts of Matter 

of M.I. are distinguishable from those in this case. In Matter of M.I., our Indiana 

Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny DCS’s petition to 

terminate the mother’s parental rights to her children because, while the mother 

struggled with finding suitable housing, she and her children “shared a ‘strong, 

loving bond[,]’” and the mother “had made progress complying with her 

parent-participation plan.” Id. The Court noted the mother did not have 

personal transportation and “went to counseling and visitations by foot[,]” and 

DCS case managers conceded that the requirements of the parental 

participation plan were “cumbersome, often requiring Mother to be in three or 

four different places in a given week, while also keeping a job, attending 

visitations, and looking for housing.” Id. 

[22] Here, Mother’s parental rights were not terminated based solely on her inability 

to secure housing.4

 The trial court found she was also unable to secure 

employment, did not participate in services, had ongoing hygiene issues, and 

did not interact well with Child. Mother never progressed past supervised visits 

4 Mother also argues her parental rights cannot be terminated based “solely” on Mother’s mental health 

struggles. (Br. of Appellant at 18.) However, as we have noted, the trial court made a number of findings 

regarding a number of different issues, including Mother’s unwillingness to address her mental health issues, 

when considering whether to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 18 of 21

with Child and refused to address her own mental health issues. Based thereon, 

we conclude the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that the conditions 

under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied.5

3. Child’s Best Interests

[23] In determining what is in Child’s best interests, a trial court is required to look 

beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the evidence. 

In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. dismissed. A parent’s 

historical inability to provide a suitable environment, along with the parent’s 

current inability to do so, supports finding termination of parental rights is in 

the best interests of a child. In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2002). The recommendations of a DCS case manager and court-appointed 

advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that conditions 

resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show that 

termination is in a child’s best interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2009).

[24] To support its conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in 

Child’s best interests, the trial court found:

5 Mother also alleges the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that the continuation of the 

parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child’s well-being. Because we hold the trial court’s findings 

supported its conclusion that the conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not 

be remedied, we need not consider Mother’s argument regarding whether the continuation of the parent-child 

relationship poses a risk to Child’s well-being. See In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) 

(because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, the court needs find only one 

requirement to terminate parental rights), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1161 (2002). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 19 of 21

36. [Child] has been placed with the same foster family since 

removal in June of 2018 and she knows this as her home. [Child] 

is thriving in the foster home and is meeting or exceeding 

developmental goals. She has an established routine and her 

needs are met. She is bonded to her foster family. The plan is for 

her to be adopted by the foster family.

37. [Court Appointed Special Advocate, hereinafter “CASA”] 

Lindy Schubring supports termination of parental rights [as] in 

[Child’s] best interests and believes that adoption by foster

parents would give [Child] a safe and stable home. CASA 

reports that [Child] is bonded to Mother but is less carefree and 

energetic around her. CASA notes that neither parent has been 

able to demonstrate a consistent ability to provide for [Child].

(App. Vol. II at 17.) Mother argues “that she hasn’t been provided every 

reasonable opportunity and that the case had not reached the ‘last resort stage’ 

as required. Until it had it can’t be said that an outcome of termination was in 

the child’s best interests.” (Br. of Appellant at 28.)

[25] Child has been removed from Mother’s care for over two years. When Child 

was removed from Mother’s care, Mother did not have stable housing or 

employment and struggled with a diagnosed but untreated mental illness. Over 

the last two years, Mother has not participated in services designed to assist her 

with obtaining and maintaining suitable housing and employment, as well as 

appropriate treatment for her mental illness. Mother’s lack of progress has kept 

her from advancing to unsupervised visits with Child. 

[26] In addition, the CASA assigned to the case recommended termination because 

neither parent “has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to provide for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 20 of 21

[Child].” (App. Vol. II at 17.) We cannot leave Child in permanency limbo 

while Mother is given additional time to complete services in which she has 

been reticent to participate. See In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273, 275 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1989) (appellate court “unwilling to put [child] on shelf until [parents] are 

capable of caring for her appropriately”); see also Baker v. Marion Cty. OFC, 810 

N.E.2d 1035, 1040 n.4 (Ind. 2004) (limitations on trial court’s ability to approve 

long-term foster care are designed to ensure a child does not “languish, 

forgotten, in custodial limbo for long periods of time without permanency”) 

(quoting In re Priser, No. 19861, 2004 WL 541124 at *6 (Ohio Ct. App. March 

19, 2004)). Based thereon, we conclude the trial court’s findings supported its 

conclusion that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best 

interests.

Conclusion

[27] Mother has waived any challenge to the trial court’s findings for failure to make 

a cogent argument. Waiver notwithstanding, regarding Finding 21, we 

conclude DCS provided sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding 

that Mother was “fairly compliant” with her drug screens until August 2019, 

and then noncompliant thereafter. (App. Vol. II at 15.) Additionally, the trial 

court’s unchallenged findings support its conclusions that the conditions under 

which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied and that 

the termination of Mother’s parental rights to Child were in Child’s best 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 21 of 21

interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights to 

Child.

[28] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.