Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT R.H.

David L. Joley

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT K.G.

Roberta Renbarger

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine A. Cornelius

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Termination of the 

Parent-Child Relationship of 

Z.G. (Minor Child) and 

R.H. (Mother) and K.G. 

(Father),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 27, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No. 

02A03-1710-JT-2358

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, 

Judge

The Honorable Sherry A. Hartzler, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 

02D08-1609-JT-227

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 2 of 12

[1] R.H. (“Mother”) and K.G. (“Father”) appeal the order of the Allen Superior 

Court terminating their rights to their minor child, Z.G. On appeal, Mother and 

Father argue that the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) presented 

insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision to terminate their 

parental rights. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Z.G. was born to Mother and Father in October 2008. Mother and Father are 

not married but generally lived together while Z.G. was in their care. Both 

Mother and Father have been incarcerated for criminal convictions and parole 

violations, and both have used illegal substances in the past. Father is also 

mildly mentally handicapped and suffers from anxiety and depression.

[4] In May 2014, DCS received a report that Father was yelling at and beating Z.G. 

in the front yard of a home Father was helping to repair. During their 

investigation, DCS observed that Z.G. was dirty, bruised, and had sores on his 

legs. Z.G. stated that Father caused his injuries. The home where Z.G. was 

found was not safe, had exposed wiring, and had no working utilities. There 

was no working bathroom, and a five-gallon bucket contained urine and feces. 

Father also admitted to using cocaine, which he tested positive for. Z.G. was 

removed from both parents and placed in foster care.

[5] On June 4, 2014, Mother and Father admitted that Z.G. was a child in need of 

services (“CHINS”). Mother and Father were ordered to refrain from drug use 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 3 of 12

and criminal activity, maintain clean, safe, and appropriate housing, and 

cooperate with caseworkers. Mother and Father were also ordered to undergo 

mental health assessments and drug and alcohol assessments and follow all 

resulting recommendations. Both parents were ordered to enroll in homebased 

services, and Father was ordered to attend parenting classes. The trial court 

ordered both parents to participate in supervised visitation with Z.G.

[6] Mother was involved in a romantic relationship and lived with a man who both 

she and Father knew had a prior conviction for attempted rape. Father lived 

with them, but Mother’s boyfriend later insisted that Father move out. Father 

threatened to kill Mother’s boyfriend and obtained a gun to do so but did not 

carry out his threat.

[7] In August 2015, Mother’s boyfriend was arrested on a new rape charge. He was 

later convicted and sentenced to the Department of Correction. Also, during 

these proceedings, Mother and Father allowed a convicted sex offender to 

reside with them for two weeks. 

[8] Mother violated her parole five times during these proceedings. And she was 

incarcerated multiple times for approximately nine months total during these 

proceedings. She is still on parole through October 2018. Mother tested positive 

for cocaine in March 2017 and April 2017. Mother was unsuccessfully 

discharged from her court-ordered substance abuse program. 

[9] Mother participated in visitation with Z.G. during the periods of time when she 

was not incarcerated, and that visitation generally went well. Mother’s home is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 4 of 12

appropriate. And Mother has maintained employment when she is not 

incarcerated. But Mother would allow Father to care for Z.G. while she is 

working if Z.G. was returned to her care.

[10] Father tried to commit suicide in 2015 and threatened to kill himself in 

December 2016. Father lacks coping skills and often resorts to making threats 

against others, including the service providers in this case. Father consistently 

lacked a stable home during these proceedings. Father was incarcerated three 

times for a total of 20 months for violating his parole during these proceedings. 

He was released from parole in August 2016. He admitted that he used cocaine 

in April 2017.

[11] Z.G. suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, and 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Z.G. is likely cognitively delayed, but 

because of behavior problems, service providers were unable to complete an IQ 

test or cognitive assessment. Z.G.’s behaviors include aggressive behaviors, 

extreme tantrums, screaming, crying, use of foul language, and running out of 

his school building. Z.G. lacked the basic skills of a student entering 

kindergarten. Z.G.’s behavior improved during the 2016-17 school year but was 

still concerning. He continued to have tantrums and throw items at adults. 

Instead of running out of the school building, Z.G. would attempt to hide under 

furniture or run in the school hallways. Z.G. also started biting. Z.G. exhibited 

his worst behavior on Tuesdays, the day after his visits with Father. Often, his 

behavior was so disruptive, Z.G. would have to leave school.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 5 of 12

[12] Z.G.’s counselor testified that Z.G. is emotionally reactive, and because of his 

emotional instability, she is only able to address his behavioral problems in 

counseling. Z.G.’s counselor observed a PTSD flashback when she asked him 

about a recent visit with his parents. Z.G. hid under a table while he cried and 

yelled at the counselor to stop hurting him. Z.G. needs a very stable and 

structured home environment with consistent expectations, consequences, and 

rewards. And Z.G.’s parents would need to be educated about Z.G.’s diagnosis 

and training in parenting a special needs child.

[13] In 2015, Z.G.’s counselor observed family visits between Z.G. and Father and 

Z.G. and Mother. Father had trouble redirecting Z.G. and keeping him on task. 

During the visit with Mother, Z.G. started to exhibit behaviors the counselor 

had not seen before including thumb sucking. Z.G. was also actively noncompliant during the visit. The counselor recommended ending the visits 

between Z.G. and parents.

[14] Father struggles when he tries to deal with Z.G.’s tantrums and aggressive 

behaviors. To his credit, Father admitted that he is not able to parent Z.G. on 

his own. Tr. Vol. II p. 229; Tr. Vol. III, p. 2.

[15] Because Mother and Father did not benefit from and/or complete services, 

continued to use illegal substances, and were incarcerated multiple times during 

the CHINS proceedings, on November 29, 2016, the DCS filed a petition to 

terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The court held fact-finding 

hearings on April 26, May 10 and 17, and June 14, 2017. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 6 of 12

[16] The court appointed special advocate (“CASA”) and family case manager 

testified that both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights should be terminated. 

The CASA and family case manager believed that Mother’s rights should be 

terminated because Mother continued to use cocaine, had not resolved her drug 

use problem, did not complete her individual therapy, has been repeatedly 

incarcerated, lived with and had a romantic relationship with a man convicted 

of attempted rape, demonstrating poor decision-making skills, and allows 

Father to move in and out of her home. They recommended that Father’s rights 

should be terminated because he failed to benefit from services, did not have 

safe and stable housing, continued to use cocaine, struggled with life skills, and 

invited a sex offender to live with him. Father also told Z.G. that Z.G.’s 

behavior was the reason he could not return to parents’ home.

[17] The trial court issued its order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights 

to Z.G. on September 12, 2017. Both parents appealed the order, and our court 

granted the DCS’s motion to consolidate the appeals.

Termination of Parental Rights

[18] We have often noted that 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 the termination of such rights when the parents 

are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities as parents. Id. Indeed, the 

parents’ interests must be subordinated to the child’s interests in determining 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 7 of 12

the proper disposition of a petition to terminate parental rights. In re G.Y., 904 

N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2009). 

[19] The termination of parental rights is controlled by Indiana Code section 31-35-

2-4(b)(2), which 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

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

of the child.

[20] The burden is on the DCS to prove each element by clear and convincing 

evidence. Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2; G.Y., 904 N.E.2d at 1261. As Indiana Code 

section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, the trial court is required 

to find that only one prong of that subsection has been established by clear and 

convincing evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). If 

the court finds the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the 

parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31-35-2-8(a). If the court does not find that the 

allegations in the petition are true, it shall dismiss the petition. Id. at § 8(b). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 8 of 12

[21] 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 

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

denied.

[22] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-8(c) now1 provides that the trial court “shall enter 

findings of fact that support the entry of the conclusions required by subsections 

(a) and (b)” to either terminate a parent-child relationship or to dismiss the 

termination petition. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(c) (emphasis added). When the 

trial court enters such findings and conclusions of law, we apply a two-tiered 

standard of review. A.D.S. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. We first determine whether the evidence 

supports the findings, and second we determine whether the findings support 

the judgment. Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains 

 

1

Indiana Code section 31-35-2-8 was amended in 2012 to add the requirement that the trial court enter 

findings of fact. See Pub. L. No. 128-2012; see also In re N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)

(noting 2012 amendment to require findings of fact supporting trial court’s decision to either grant or dismiss 

a petition to terminate parental rights).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 9 of 12

no facts to support them either directly or by inference.” Id. (quoting Quillen v. 

Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996)). If the evidence and inferences support 

the trial court’s decision, we must affirm. Id. 

Discussion and Decision

[23] On appeal, Mother and Father argue that the trial court’s conclusion that 

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Z.G.’s well-being

is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

2

In considering their 

arguments, we note that a trial court need not wait until a child is irreversibly 

influenced by a deficient lifestyle such that his physical, mental, and social 

growth is permanently impaired before termination the parent-child 

relationship. In re E.S., 762 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). And to 

evaluate whether continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to 

the child, a trial court “should consider a parent’s habitual pattern of conduct to 

determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or 

deprivation” while also judging a parent’s fitness to care for his child as of the 

 

2 Because we conclude that DCS proved that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of 

the parent-child relationships poses a threat to Z.G.’s well-being, we need not address parents’ 

arguments directed at the removal prong of Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). See In re A.K., 924 

N.E.3d at 220 (noting that section 4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive and that the trial court is 

required to find that only one prong of subsection (b)(2)(B) has been established). Also, although both 

parties made a statement in their briefs that termination of their rights was not in Z.G.’s best interests,

neither parent presented any argument that termination of his or her parental rights was not in Z.G.’s 

best interests.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 10 of 12

time of the termination proceedings, taking into consideration evidence of 

changed conditions. In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

A. Mother

[24] Mother argues that after she was released from incarceration she enrolled and 

participated in services. And “the court should have given great weight to the 

positive steps Mother has taken to reunify with Z.G., and given her the ample 

time that protects this constitutionally sacred relationship.” Mother’s 

Appellant’s Br. at 13.

[25] Mother has a history of use of illegal substances and incarceration. Importantly, 

she did not complete her court-ordered substance abuse treatment program. Her 

risk of relapse is high. And she tested positive for cocaine in March and April 

2017. Mother was also unsuccessfully discharged from home-based therapy. 

Mother was given another referral for substance abuse counseling, but Mother 

frequently canceled those appointments. Mother’s visitation with Z.G. went 

well when it occurred, but Mother missed many visitations due to incarceration 

or cancellations. Mother also demonstrated poor-decision making by being 

romantically involved with and residing with a man convicted of attempted 

rape, who was also convicted of rape during these proceedings. Mother also 

allowed a man Father met in prison live in her home for two weeks. The man 

was a registered sex offender. Mother would also allow Father to provide day 

care for Z.G. if he were returned to her care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 11 of 12

[26] Z.G., who has been in foster care since May 2014, requires a very stable and 

structured home environment with consistent expectations, consequences, and 

rewards. Although Mother has an adequate home, throughout these 

proceedings Mother’s criminal behavior and subsequent incarcerations made it 

impossible for her to provide a stable home. Mother’s historical pattern of 

behavior compels the conclusion that she cannot maintain a stable and 

structured home environment for Z.G. And Mother has not demonstrated that 

she is able to ensure that Z.G.’s special needs are met. For all of these reasons, 

we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s 

conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the 

parent-child relationships poses a threat to Z.G.’s well-being.

B. Father

[27] Father argues that he has a deep bond with Z.G. and cites to the visitation 

supervisor’s testimony that he was caring, engaged, and affectionate during 

visitation with Z.G. Father also notes that he is participating in services to assist 

him with coping skills and maintaining stable housing.

[28] Father participated in services; however, Father did not demonstrate that he 

benefited from those services. Also, Father’s mild mental handicap and mental 

health issues inhibit his ability to parent a special needs child. Father did not 

learn to control Z.G.’s behaviors, and his progress in family therapy was slow. 

Father struggles with coping skills and frustration often results in Father 

threatening other people. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JT-2358 | April 27, 2018 Page 12 of 12

[29] Father has a history of using illegal substances when he is under stress. Father 

has demonstrated poor decision making in several instances including obtaining 

a gun to shoot Mother’s boyfriend, allowing a sex offender to live with him for 

two weeks, and living with individuals who steal from him. Father is unable to 

protect himself from those who seek to take advantage of him. And Father has 

not been able to maintain a stable home and struggles to provide for his own 

needs. Finally, Father admitted that he would not be able to parent Z.G. by 

himself. For these reasons, we conclude that the DCS presented clear and 

convincing evidence that continuation of Father’s relationship with Z.G. poses 

a threat to his well-being.

Conclusion

[30] Nearly all cases involving the termination of parental rights are tragic. This case 

is no different. We have no reason to doubt Mother’s and Father’s love for and 

bond with Z.G. But that does not make the termination of their parental rights 

improper. Mother’s and Father’s argument that the DCS failed to prove that 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to Z.G.’s well-being is 

merely a request to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, 

which we cannot do. Considering the facts favorable to the trial court’s decision, 

and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we cannot say that 

the trial court clearly erred in terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. 

[31] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and May, J., concur.