Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 1 of 17



### 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.
A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLANT Ruth Johnson Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Anna Onaitis Holden Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE 1 Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Robert J. Henke Abigail R. Recker Katherine A. Cornelius Deputy Attorney s General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent

- Child Relationship of B.D., Mother, and S.D., Minor Child, B.D. , Appellant

- Respondent

, v. February 23 , 2018 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge The Honorable Larry Bradley, Magistrate

1 On November 29, 2017, DeDe K. Connor filed an appearance for Child Advocates, Inc.; however, Child Advocates, Inc. did not file a separate appellee’s brief.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 2 of 17



### Indiana Department of Child Services , Appellee

- Petition e r,
a nd Child Advocates, Inc., Appellee

- Guardian Ad Litem

. Trial Court Cause No. 49D09

- 1605

- JT

- 487

Kirsch , Judge .
[1] B.D. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order termina ting her parental rights to her child S.D. (“Child”), raising the following restated issue: whether the judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights was clearly erroneous because there was insufficient evidence th at termination was in Child’s best intere st s .
[2] We affirm. 

### Facts and Procedural History
[3] Child was born on July 28, 2008 to Mother and K.R. (“Father”)

. 2 In April 2014, DCS filed its petition alleging that Child w as a child in need of services

2 Father was convicted of having sexually abused Child’s half

- sister, H.A., and he was incarcera ted at the time of Child’s termination hearing. In December 2016, Father signed consents for Child’s adoption. Father does not participate in this appeal.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 3 of 17

(“CHINS”)

. 3 The 2014 CHINS petition (“CHINS petition”) alleged , in pertinent part, that Mother had failed to or was unwilling to provide Child with a safe, stable, and appropriate living environment. Mother ha d an extensive history with DCS and was, at that time, involved in a CHINS action regarding her daughter H.A. 4 Child’s CHINS petition alleged that M other lacked stable housing and had moved numerous times in the months preceding the filing of the CHINS petition

. Further, Mother had not successfully demonstrated the ability to provide Child with a safe, stable, appropriate home . Accordingly, the CHINS court determined that its coercive intervention was necessary to ensure Child’s safety and well

- being

. A fter the initial hearing, DCS removed Child from Mother’s care , and Child was plac ed in foster care

.
[4] On May 28, 2014, Child was adjudicated to be a CHINS , and t hat same day, t he CHINS court proceeded to a dispositional hearing . The CHINS court’s parental participation decree ordered Mother, in part, to participate in: (1) home

- based c ounseling; and (2) domestic violence assessment and the recommended services

. The permanency plan for Child remained reunification until April 13, 2016, at which time the CHINS court changed the plan to adoption. DCS filed its petition to terminate Mothe r’s parental rights on May

3 Mother had four children, H.A., M.D., J.D., and Child. The CHINS petition alleged that Child a nd two of her half

- siblings, H.A. and J.D., were CHINS; however, Child is the only subject of the instant appeal. 4 A CHINS petition regarding H.A. and M.D. was filed in March 2013. Tr. Vol. II at 169. Mother testified that she walked “in the bedroom c atching [her] oldest[, H.A.,] rape her middle daughter[, M.D.].” I d. Mother did not successfully complete services to remedy the reasons for DCS’s involvement regarding H.A., and H.A. was not returned to Mother’s care. Mother admitted that she d id not w ant H.A. to return to the home due to H.A.’s history of sexu ally abusing her siblings.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 4 of 17

13, 2016. On June 22, 2017, more than three years after Child had been removed from Mother’s care, the juvenile court held a hearing on the petition to terminate Mother’s rights.

[5] At the termination hearing, Cura Lester (“Leste r”) , Child’s foster care case manager at Children’s Bureau , testified that she visited Child at least once a week, visited Child’s school at least twice a month, but had little contact with Mother. Lester said that Child could have explosive temper tantru ms, where intervention was necessary. Tr. Vol. II at 11

- 12. It was Lester’s opinion that Child should remain in her current placement with her foster m other, and she “recommended adoption of [Child]

. . . just for stability and consistency for her.” Id

. at 12. Lester said that change was difficult for Child to understand

— she required routine, consistency, and an understand ing of what is going on day to day

.
[6] Elwanda Haynes (“Haynes”), a home

- based therapist at Gallahue Behavioral Health , testified that she began treating Child i n August 2014, when Child was five years old

. Id. at 105 . Ch ild’s demeanor during sessions varied “ depending
on what was going on that day

. ” Id

. at 106. “If she had a good day, she was fine and we could . . . talk about thing s” like feelings and behaviors. Id

. at 106

- 07. If Child “got in trouble in school, she was very defiant ,” and she did not want to talk or participate in the session

. Id

. at 106. Child’s defiant behaviors included yelli ng, screaming, and running away. Id

. at 107 . Child’s case was closed with Haynes in December 2015 because Child began working withCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 5 of 17

another therapist , who was able to deal with Child’s mental health and sexualized behaviors

. Id

. at 106

.
[7] Patricia Phelps (“Foster Mother”) testified that, d ue to no fault of Child, Child was removed from the first foster home , and in May 2015, she was placed in therapeutic foster care with Foster Mother

. Id

. at 10, 86

. Foster Mother , who was seventy
- seven years old, testified that she had been a foster pare nt since 1973 , had fostered thirty

- six children , and had adopted sixteen

. Id

. at 86, 100. I n addition to Child, there were three other children living in Foster Mother’s home, an adopted daughter and two “medically fragile” foster children

. Id

. at 87. Foster Mother said that there was a “strong rule” in the family : “I don’t touch you and you don’t touch me.” Id

. at 90. Child was allowed to interact with the medically fragile children, but only when Foster Mother or a nurse was present. Even so, Fost er Mother stressed, “[W]e do not push a deep relationship with these kids because . . . they’ re probably not going to live long and . . . [Child]’s already had her share of issues

. . . so we make sure they [Child and other adopted child] build a life that ’ s not included with the [medically fragile] kids. ” Id

. at 95.

[8] Foster Mother testified that Child was, initially, well behaved , but that changed a few months later when Child began exhibiting some destructive behaviors. Child would peel paint off woodw ork and eat it. Id

. at 102

- 03. Foster Mother testified that Child started throwing tantrums at home , and at school, “she was leaving the classroom, she was stealing. She was all of a sudden out of the clear blue cussing the teacher, [and] throwing chairs at the children.” Id

. at 90.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 6 of 17

Child also displayed sexualized behaviors , including: (1) approaching random
men or neighborhood boys, explaining the different sexual acts she could perform, and asking if they were interested; (2) masturbating with potentially dangerous objects ; and (3) intentionally urinating on her clothing

. Id

. at 92, 101

- 02 . Foster Mother testifie d that there was a correlation between visits with Mother and Child’s sexualized behavior

. Id

. at 94. Child would go weeks without a visit , and the sexualized behavior would go away ; however, after visits with Mother, Child would act out sexually

. Id

. Child’s behavior interfered with her education; “she was on the first

- grade level for three years,”
even having had a tutor for five days a week. Id

. at 103. Child was treated by vario us mental health providers, and her me dication was adjusted over time. Foster Mother testified that those changes made a “remarkable difference,” saying, “[Child] can keep her mind on things. Um she can um think before she acts.” Id . at 93. Foster Mother testified that she was willing to adopt Child. Id

. at 94.

[9] Gabrie lle Young (“Young”), a home

- based therapist at Family Works , testified that Child began work ing with her in July 2015 . Child met with Young once or twice a week and treatment goals included working on Child’s “sexually reactive behaviors

. ” Id . at 45 , 51. Child said that Father had touched her “down there” and made her touch him in certain places

. Id . at 58

- 59. She also said that her half

- sister, M.D. , had touched her inappropriately

. Id

. at 60. Additionally, Child had witnessed domestic violence between Mother and Father and between Mother and other men . Id . at 59

- 60

. Young spent a longCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 7 of 17

time trying to get Child to express and regulate feelings and emotions, as well as learning body boundaries

. Id . at 45

- 46. Child would sometimes talk about “rubbing herself down there

. ” Id . at 57

. Sometimes , Child acted inappropriately during sessions, including intentionally spreading her legs and dancing inappropriately. Id

. at 46

- 47. Young attributed Child’s behaviors to past sexual trauma. Id

. at 57. Young testified that Child has “a very complex trauma history,” so it is “important for her to feel stable, to feel secure and not to increase her anxiety.” Id . at 52.

[10] Meg h an n Banks (“Banks”), a care coordinator at C hoices, testified that she began monitoring Child’s “progress and treatment ” in September 2016. Id

. at 30, 32. At that time, Child had a “behaviorist” and home

- based therapy. Id . at 32. Banks testified that, initially, Child’s behavior fluctuated. However, t hree or four months before the termination hearing, Child was referred to and participated in Applied Behavioral Analysis ( “ ABA ” ), “an intensive service th at is used to address behaviors. ” Id

. at 33, 37. As part of the ABA, Child was provided w ith an educational mentor. Id . at 31 . Banks said that Child’s behavior improved after ABA was put into place

.
[11] Shirley Perez (“Perez”), a DCS Family Case Manager (“FCM”) who had worked with the family for two years, testified that Mother had trouble
com plying with services. Id . at 117. Perez testified that, in the spring of 2016, DCS recommended that Mother have unsupervised visits with Child. Because Child was having “suicidal thoughts,” a safety plan was created , requiring Mother to call 911 if Child “were to do something.” Id

. at 123. When ChildCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 8 of 17

put a jump rope around her neck and threatened to harm herself, Mother did not comply with the safety plan. Id

. Perez testified that Mother’s non

compliance created concern as to whether Mother could provide Child a stable home. Child’s stability was important because Child “has such high anxiety that if anything changes just a bit it, it just throws her off completely.” Id . at 127. Perez had “personally requested to keep the case just to make sure that it [didn’t] throw [Child] off even with an FCM coming to the home.” Id . Perez testified that it was in Child’s best interests to “be adopted by the current foster parent” because Foster Mother can take care of Child’s needs. Id . Perez testified that Foster Mother was “ a strong advocate ” in regard to getting
nec essary referrals, medication , and therapy to meet Child’s needs. Id . at 127

- 28.

[12] Mark Bass (“ the GAL ”), a guardian ad litem for Child Advocates, Inc., testified that as part of his involvement with Child’s case he had attend ed court hearings , review ed court reports, provider reports, and school documents , spoken with numerous providers , and visited Mother at home

. Id

. at 143. The GAL testified that, typically, an individual like Child would be placed in residential treatment; however, that was avoided because Foster Mother has been “that much of an advocate” for Child. Id

. at 145. Foster Mother has been able to handle Child’s out bursts, school issues, and sexually acting out. The GAL stated, “[I]t takes an experienced person and a person with a big heart to be able to, to handle that stuff. Um and [Foster Mother’s] experience has helped her do that [,] and in the years I’ve been doing this[,] a lot of fosterCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 9 of 17

parents aren’t capable of that.” Id

. at 146. The GAL said that Mother had been given a sufficient amount of time, but had been unable to complete services. He said that Child needed consistency and stability to properly dev elop; he recommended that Child’s permanency plan should be adoption. Id

. at 147.

[13] In April 2016, Mother was referred to Family Works provider Bertha Rush (“Rush”), who helped Mother with home

- based therapy and monitored supervised visitation between Mo ther and Child. Rush testified that Mother did well overall. Rush opined that Mother had made progress; however, Rush expressed concerns because she “didn’t see a long duration of stability. Um often times that would change within a month or two.” Id

. at 195. Rush stopped providing services for Mother in February 2017, when she had not heard from Mother “in about a month.” Id

. at 196. The juvenile court entered its order, on August 2, 2017, terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child. Mother now a ppeals. 

### Discussion and Decision
[14] Mother contends that the juv enile court erred in terminating her parental rights to Child. Speci fic ally, she contends that termination is not in Child’s best interest s because Child “has an undisputed, heightened need for consistency and permanency,” which is inconsistent with DCS’s plan that Child be adopted “by an elderly woman who fosters medically fragile children who may not live long.” Appellant’s Br . at 4. “‘ The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home andCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 10 of 17

raise their children.’” K.T.K. v. Ind

. Dep’t of Child Servs. , 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children , 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005) )

. “ T he parent

- child relationship is one of the most valued relationships in our culture.” Id

. (internal quotation s omitted). “ However, although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law allows for the termination of those rights when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his [or her] responsibility as a parent. ” In re D.P. , 994 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing In re T.F. , 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied )

. Further, “‘ c hildren have an interest in terminating parental rights that prevent adoption and inhibit establishing secure, stable, long

- term, continuous relationships. ’ ” In re K.T.K. , 989 N.E.2d at 1230 (quoting In re C.G. , 954 N.E.2d 910, 917 (Ind. 2011) ). Therefore, parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s best interests in deciding the appropriate disposition of a petition to terminate the parent

- child relationship. Id

.
[15] The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parent but to protect the child. In re D.P. , 994 N.E.2d at 12 31 . Termination of parental rights is proper where the child’s emotional and physical development is threatened. Id . The juvenile court need not wait until the child is i rreversibly harmed such that her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent

- child relationship. Id

.
[16] In reviewing termination proceedings on appeal, this court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. In re K.T.K. , 989 N.E.2d at 1229; In re S.P.H

., 806 N.E.2d 874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 11 of 17

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 ’ s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. In evaluating whether the trial court’ s decision to terminate parental rights is clearly errone ous, 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 judgm ent. Clear and convincing evidence need not reveal that the continued custody of the parents is wholly inadequate for the child ’ s very survival. Rather, it is sufficient to show by clear and con vincing evidence that the child’ s emotional and physical dev elopment are thre atened by the respondent parent’ s custody

. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229

- 30 ( internal citations omitted) ( internal quotation s omitted).

[17] As is pertinent to this appeal, to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights, DCS had to al lege and prove, among other things : (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 remedie d. (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent
- child relationship poses a threat to the well

- being of the child.

. . . . ;Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 12 of 17

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and (D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the c are and treatment of the child. Ind. Code § 31

- 35

- 2

- 4(b)(2) (B)

. The State’s burden of proof for establishing these allegations in termination cases “is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In re H.L

. , 9 15 N.E. 2d 145, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

. Moreover, if the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate the parent

- child relationship. Ind. Code § 31

- 35

- 2

- 8(a) (emphasis added).

[18] Mother does not challenge the following findings made by the juvenile court : ( 1) Mother’s therapy

— t o cope with anger and understand Child’s needs

—
c losed in April 2017 after a month where Mother had no contact with provider ; (2) in 2014, Child had violent tantrums, scream ed, and threw objects, which Mother thought was typical behavior of a young girl; (3) therapist Young treated , for two years, Child’s sexual trauma , which was caused by being molested by Father and half

- sister and by witnessing Mother as victim of domestic abuse; (4) Young has been opposed to unsupervised visits throughout the CHINS case, based on [Mother] ’ s lack of consistency and stability , and believes that Child should not be returned to Mother’s care; (5) Child sexually acts out and has had issues with body safety boundaries ; (6) Mother agrees that Child displays behavior of having been sexually abused, but initially blamed Child’s behavior on foster care; (7) Mother minimizes Child’s need for treatment and believes everything would be fine if Child cam e home; (8) ChildCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 13 of 17

is doing well with Foster Mother and has made a lot of progress with decreased anxiety and increased understanding of boundaries; (9) Child’s inappropriate behavior coincided with parenting time and was triggered by exposure to older
men and Mother; (10) Mother was inconsistent in exercising her parenting time and cancelled visits at the last minute, negatively affecting Child; (11) at the time of the termination hearing, Child had lived with Foster Mother for over two years; (12) Foster M other has agreed to adopt Child; (13) Foster Mother is patient, calm , and a strong advocate in meeting Child’s special needs; and (14) while Mother loves Child and the two have a bond, stability is important to Child to keep her anxiety low; (15) Child needs routine and consistency in order to thrive. Appellant’s App

. Vol . II at 17

- 18.

[19] Further, Mother does not dispute the juvenile court’s conclusions that “[t]here is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in [Child]’s removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied ” and “[t]here is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent

- child relationship poses a threat to [Child]’s well

- being

. ” 5 Id. at 18. As a result, Mother has waived any argument relating to these unchallenged findings and conclusions

. See In re B.R., 87 5 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (providing that failure

5 Mother states, she “acknowledges, without conceding , that there is evidence in this case that may prove one or both of the elements set out in Indiana Code Section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4(b)(B). ” Appellant’s Br . at 17 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding Mother’s apparent attempt to keep those issues alive on appeal, Mother makes no cogent argument that the juvenile court’s findings as to those two matters are clearly erroneous. Failure to make a cogent argument waive s the issue for appellate review. Crider v. Crider , 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 14 of 17

to challenge findings resulted in waiver of argument that findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied. Instead, Mother’s argument fold s together two requirements , claiming (1) that the ter mination is not in Child’s best interests because (2) the plan for Child , which is “adoption by an elderly woman who fosters medically fragile children who may not live long,” is not a satisfactory plan. Appellant’s Br . at 4

. We remind Mother that these two requirements are separate inquiries.


### 1. Best Interests
[20] In deciding whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the juvenile court must look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the eviden ce. In re A.S. , 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied

. In making that determination, the juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parent to that of the child involved. Id . The court need not wait until a child is harmed ir reversibly before terminating the parent
- child relationship. Id

. Here, Mother recognizes that Child needs stability and consistency. Appellant’s Br . at 18. Mother also understands that “[p] ermanency is a central consideration in determining the best in terests of a child .” Id

. at 19 (quoting In re G.L. , 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009)). That being said, “a need for permanency, alone is not a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights. ” In re A.S. , 17 N.E.3d at 1006.

[21] Here, permanency was a consideration, but it was not the sole basis for the termination of Mother’s parental rights. T he evidence before the juvenile court revealed that Child and two of her siblings were sexually molested while underCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 15 of 17

Mother’s care, and Child witnessed Mo ther being a victim of domestic abuse. Tr. Vol. II at 60, 156, 169. Upon leaving Mother’s care at age five, Child had violent tantrums, screamed, and threw objects, which Mother thought was typical behavior of a young girl

. Id

. at 11, 173. Child sexual ly acted out and had issues with body safety boundaries ; Mother initially blamed Child’s behavior on foster care. Id

. at 79

- 80. Mother minimized Child’s need for treatment and believed that everything would be fine once Child came home. Appellant’s App

. Vol. II at 17

. Child’s inappropriate behaviors coincided with parenting time, and triggers of those behaviors were exposure to older men and to Mother

. Tr. Vol. II at 64

- 65, 131. Mother was inconsistent with her visitation and would cancel at the last minute, which negatively impacted Child. Id

. at 13. At the time of the termination hear ing , Child had lived with Foster Mother for two years, was doing well, and had made a lot of p rogress with decreased anxiety and increased understanding of boundaries

. Id

. at 86, 93. Mother’s therapy, addressing Mother’s ability to cop e with anger and understand Child’s needs, was terminated after Mother was out of communication with provider Rus h for about a month. Id. at 196. Finally, Child needs routine and consistency in order to thrive. Id

. The juvenile court did not err in concluding there was sufficient evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best interests

. Mother’s arguments to the contrary are invitations 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 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses), trans. denied

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 16 of 17 

### 2. Satisfactory Plan
[22] Mother contends that, considering Child’s needs for stability, it was an improper plan to place Child with Foster Mother. Considering the requirements of Indiana Code section 31

- 35

- 2

- 4(b)(2)(B) , we restate Mother ’s argument as whether DCS has a satisfactory plan for Child’s care and treatment. Mother asse r ts that Foster Mother ’s age of seventy
- seven years old , and her care for medically fra gile children in her home creates an uncertainty regarding how stable Foster Mother’s home will be for Child

. To terminate Mother’s parental rights, the juvenile court did not need to judge the appropriateness of Foster Mother’s home; instead, it was requ ired only to determine whether DCS had a satisfactory plan for Child.

[23] “Indiana courts have traditionally held that for a plan to be ‘satisfactory,’ for the purposes of the termination statute, it ‘need not be detailed, so long as it offers a general sens e of the direction in which the child will be going after the parent
- child relationship is terminated.’” In re A.S. , 17 N.E.3d at 1007 (quoting Lang v. Starke Cnty. Office of Family & Children , 861 N.E.2d 366, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied ). A DCS plan is satisfactory if the plan is to attempt to find a suitable parent to adopt the child. Id . In other words, there need not be a guarantee that a suitable adoption will take place, only that DCS will try to find a suitable adoptive parent. Id

. Accordingly, a plan is not unsatisfactory if DCS has not identified a specific family to adopt the child. Id . Part of the reason for this is that it is within the authority of the adoption court, not the termination court, to decide whether an adoptive placement is appropriate. Id

. Here, DCSCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1708

- JT

- 1931 | February 23 , 2018 Page 17 of 17

had a plan that Child would be adopted. Based on these standards, we conclude that DCS’s plan that Child be adopted was a satisfactory plan

. Accordingly, w e need not discuss whether Foster Mo ther is a suitable adoptive parent, that question will be within the jurisdiction of the adoption court. Id

.
[24] DCS presented sufficient evidence that termination was in Child’s best interests , and that adoption was an appropriate plan

.
[25] Affirmed.
Bailey , J., and Pyle , J., concur.