Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 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

Cathy M. Brownson

Coots, Henke, & Wheeler, P.C.

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of D.G., J.G., and H.G. (Minor 

Children) and Je.G. (Mother);

Je.G. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

June 29, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

29A02-1512-JT-2202

Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Paul Felix, Judge

The Honorable Todd Ruetz, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

29C01-1504-JT-605

29C01-1504-JT-603

29C01-1504-JT-606
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 2 of 12

May, Judge.

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

H.G., D.G., and J.G. (collectively, “Children”). She argues the Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”) did not present sufficient evidence the conditions under 

which Children were removed from her care would not be remedied and 

termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of Children. We 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to H.G. on July 13, 2011, and to twins D.G. and J.G. on 

October 30, 2013. At birth, D.G. and J.G. tested positive for Hydrocodone,2

THC, and methamphetamine. Based thereon, Mother agreed to an Informal 

Adjustment (“IA”) with DCS, which offered her services including homebased 

case management, homebased therapy, drug and alcohol assessment and 

treatment, and random drug screens. Mother was not required to complete 

drug and alcohol treatment unless she tested positive for illegal substances. 

Mother tested positive for illegal substances multiple times during the IA but 

did not complete drug and alcohol treatment. She was incarcerated for 

unrelated charges on February 24, 2014.

 

1 Children’s respective fathers consented to adoption and do not participate in this appeal.

2 Mother had a valid prescription for Hydrocodone.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 3 of 12

[3] On March 27, 2014, Mother tested positive for cocaine. On April 4, 2014, DCS 

alleged Children were Child(ren) in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and on April 

7, the trial court authorized DCS to remove Children from Mother’s care 

because Mother violated the terms of the IA. On September 3, 2014, the trial 

court adjudicated Children as CHINS based on Mother’s drug use and lack of 

participation in services offered as part of the IA.

[4] On December 1, 2014, the trial court ordered Mother to complete a substance 

abuse assessment and follow all recommendations, complete a psychological 

assessment and follow all recommendations, complete a parenting assessment 

and follow all recommendations, visit regularly with Children, and submit to 

random drug and alcohol screenings. Mother was not compliant and on May 

4, 2015, the trial court changed Children’s permanency plan from reunification 

to adoption.

[5] On June 4, 2015, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to 

Children. On October 15, 2015, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing on 

the termination petitions. On November 17, 2015, the trial court issued orders 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children.

Discussion and Decision

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

& B.G., 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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 4 of 12

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).

[7] When, as here, a judgment contains findings of fact and conclusions thereon, 

we apply a two-tiered review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 

N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). We determine first whether the evidence supports 

the findings and second 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. 

[8] “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, however, when 

evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 

at 837. 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 her parental 

responsibilities. Id. at 836.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 5 of 12

[9] 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.

[10] 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. 

[11] Mother challenges the court’s conclusions that the conditions under which 

Children were removed would not be remedied, the continuation of the parent-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 6 of 12

child relationship posed a risk to Children, and termination was in the best 

interests of Children.3

Reasonable Probability Conditions Would Not Be Remedied

[12] The trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her children 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 the conditions will not change. Lang v. 

Starke County OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

[13] Children were removed from Mother’s home because Mother repeatedly tested 

positive for drugs. The trial court found:4

4. On or about October 30, 2015, [D.G. and J.G. were] born 

with a controlled substance in [their bodies]. As a result, Mother 

entered into a program of Informal Adjustment [IA] with the 

DCS on November 26, 2013.

 

3 The trial court found the conditions under which Children were removed would not be remedied and the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Children. DCS does not have to prove both. 

The statute is written in the disjunctive, and DCS must prove either by clear and convincing evidence. Ind. 

Code § 31-35-2-4. Because the evidence supports the conclusion there was a reasonable probability that the 

conditions leading to Children’s removal would not be remedied, we need not address whether the 

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

4 The trial court entered a separate order for each child; however, the findings were virtually identical and 

thus we quote only the order concerning D.G.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 7 of 12

5. A requirement of the IA was to discontinue use of illegal 

substances;

6. Mother was offered home based casework, counseling, a 

substance abuse assessment, and random drug screens 

throughout the IA;

7. Mother continued to test positive for illegal substances 

throughout the IA;

* * * * *

9. Mother tested positive for cocaine after a drug screen on 

March 27, 2014;

* * * * *

18. During the CHINS proceeding,

a. Mother was ordered to participate in a substance abuse 

assessment and a psychological evaluation;

b. Mother completed a substance abuse assessment on 

March 9, 2015. The assessment recommended that 

Mother participate in Intensive Outpatient Treatment 

(IOP);

c. Mother never followed through with the continued 

substance abuse treatment recommended in the 

assessment. Mother was to begin IOP on March 10, 2015 

and failed to begin. 

* * * * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 8 of 12

21. Mother has failed to complete a drug treatment program;

22. In the last right [sic] (8) months, Mother has been charged 

five (5) times with new criminal charges relating to substance 

abuse[.]

(App. at 16, 17, 20, 23.)

[14] In addition, failure to visit one’s children “demonstrates a lack of commitment 

to complete the actions necessary to preserve the parent-child relationship.” In 

re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The trial court found 

Mother was ordered to participate in supervised visitation with Children, but:

h. Mother often appeared late for visits and was inappropriate 

when the visits were held at the placement’s5 home. Mother 

argued with the placement in front of the Child[ren] during 

visitation;

i. Mother came to visits under the influence of alcohol or drugs;

j. Visitation was suspended by order of the Court effective 

October 31, 2014 and a hearing was set;

k. The Court ordered Mother on January 26, 2015 to participate 

in a substance abuse assessment and a psychological evaluation 

and comply with all recommendations of that assessment, 

comply with all drug screen requests, demonstrate a minimum 

period of sixty (60) days of strict compliance with the Court’s 

 

5 “The placement” appears to be a reference to the Children’s respective paternal grandparents, with whom 

the Children were placed after they were removed from Mother’s care. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 9 of 12

terms, both as to attending screens and having those screens 

return with negative results prior to visitation being reinitiated 

with the Child[ren].

(App. at 21) (footnote added). Mother’s last visit with Children was October 

24, 2014.

[15] Mother argues DCS did not present sufficient evidence the conditions under 

which Children were removed would not be remedied because “Mother had 

been clean and sober for two months at the time of the termination hearing in 

October 2015.” (Br. of Appellant at 15.) However, Mother was incarcerated 

for the time prior to the October 2015 hearing; thus it would seem her access to 

illegal substances was momentarily curtailed. Her temporary sobriety does not 

require us to overlook her conduct throughout the proceedings. See In re 

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013) (trial court is within its discretion to 

“disregard the efforts Mother made only shortly before termination and to 

weigh more heavily Mother’s history of conduct prior to those efforts”); and see 

Prince v. Allen County DCS, 861 N.E.2d 1223, 1230-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) 

(termination of parental rights appropriate when mother “has not demonstrated 

she will remain sober without the constant threat of imprisonment”). Mother’s 

argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. 

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

judge the credibility of witnesses).

Children’s Best Interests
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 10 of 12

[16] In determining what is in the children’s best interests, the juvenile 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 the 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 

by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children’s best 

interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 

[17] In addition to the trial court’s findings regarding Mother’s substance abuse and 

lack of visitation with Children, DCS presented testimony from the Guardian 

ad litem, who had concerns about Mother’s mental health based on Mother’s 

“erratic behavior” during conversations with her. (App. at 23.) At the time of 

the termination hearing, Mother was incarcerated and was not employed. 

Finally, the trial court found the Children were doing well in their current 

placement with their paternal grandparents, with whom they had lived since 

September 29, 2014. 

[18] Mother argues termination was not in the best interests of the Children because 

she was working towards reunification with Children by participating in 

services while she was incarcerated. Mother testified she had been accepted 

into Drug Court, which would allow her to participate in substance abuse 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 11 of 12

services in an effort to avoid further jail time. Finally, Mother contends 

Children were young and thus additional time in relative care would not 

adversely affect them.

[19] In support of her argument, Mother cites In Re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 

(Ind. 2009), reh’g denied, where termination was not in the best interests of G.Y. 

because his mother, who was incarcerated for a crime committed prior to 

G.Y.’s conception, had completed services and maintained contact with G.Y. 

while she was incarcerated. In addition, her release from incarceration was 

imminent. 

[20] Such is not the case here. Mother was arrested multiple times during the 

CHINS and TPR proceedings, had consistently tested positive for illegal 

substances, had not completed services, and had not visited with Children for 

approximately a year before her parental rights were terminated. Mother’s 

arguments are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. 

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

judge the credibility of witnesses).

Conclusion

[21] DCS provided sufficient evidence the circumstances under which Children were 

removed from Mother’s home would not be remedied and termination was in 

Children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s 

parental rights to Children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1512-JT-2202 | June 29, 2016 Page 12 of 12

[22] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Brown, J., concur.