Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 1 of 9

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

Melinda K. Jackman-Hanlin

Greencastle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Patricia C. McMath

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary 

Termination of the Parent-Child 

Relationship of: T.H., A.H., 

E.H., and M.H. (Minor 

Children),

and

S.F. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

October 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-898

Appeal from the Putnam Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Matthew L. 

Headley, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

67C01-1708-JT-14

67C01-1708-JT-15

67C01-1708-JT-16

67C01-1708-JT-17
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 2 of 9

Baker, Judge.

[1] S.F. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her relationship with 

four of her children. Mother argues that the evidence is insufficient to support 

the order. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Mother and J.H. (Father) are the parents of four children: T.H., born in May 

2009; A.H., born in February 2011; E.H., born in August 2013; and M.H., born 

in July 2014. Mother also has two older children who have a different father 

and who are not part of this case.

[3] This family has been involved with the Department of Child Services (DCS) 

before. When T.H. was one month old, Mother broke his arm, resulting in an 

informal adjustment with DCS. Then, A.H. and T.H. were removed from their 

home in Illinois from January 2012 through November 2013, becoming wards 

of Illinois during that period. The reason for that removal and wardship was 

domestic violence between the parents.

[4] On May 29, 2015, Indiana DCS received a report alleging that the four children 

were victims of neglect after Mother and Father engaged in domestic violence 

while the children were present in the home. As a result of the incident, 

Mother had significant bruising and one of her older children had scratches 

down his back after Father pushed him into a door frame. Mother admitted 

that she and Father had a history of domestic violence. Both parents were 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 3 of 9

arrested following the incident; Mother eventually pleaded guilty to 

misdemeanor battery.1

[5] The DCS investigator observed the children in the home on the date of the 

altercation. M.H. and E.H. were dirty. M.H. had a burn on her left thumb, red 

knots on the top and left side of her head, a bruise on her right cheek, a linear 

bruise on the right side of her back, and a scratch on her arm. T.H. had 

scratches on his arms, chest, and legs, a large linear bruise on his leg, and an 

engorged tick on his head. T.H. gave conflicting stories about how he got the 

bruise and scratches, ultimately saying that he was not allowed to talk about 

how he got them and admitting that Mother had hit him with a baseball bat. 

A.H. had a bruise on his left knee and he reported that Mother had hit him with 

a baseball bat. He also stated that his parents fight a lot and that they hit and 

kick each other. The children did not have any beds; instead, they slept on 

blankets on the floor.

[6] On June 1, 2015, DCS filed a petition alleging that the children were children in 

need of services (CHINS) because of domestic violence and the bruising found 

on the children. The children were removed from the parents’ care and custody 

and placed in foster care. Both parents admitted to the allegations in the 

CHINS petition and the trial court found the children to be CHINS. On July 7, 

 

1

Father was convicted of battery as a result of this incident. Additionally, at the time of the termination 

hearing in this case, he was facing charges of felony domestic battery and strangulation on his new wife in 

Vigo County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 4 of 9

2015, the trial court entered a dispositional order requiring Mother to, among 

other things, participate with random drug screens, a parenting assessment, a 

mental health evaluation, a domestic violence assessment, and a substance 

abuse assessment. Mother was later referred to home-based counseling and 

anger management services.

[7] Over the course of the CHINS case, Mother was largely compliant with services 

but failed to make significant progress on most issues. She regularly tested 

positive for marijuana, often exhibited anger towards the children during visits, 

quit her job, and failed to maintain independent housing. As recently as one 

month before the termination hearing, Mother continued to yell at the children 

during visits and frequently ended visits early by storming off in anger. 

Mother’s visits never progressed to unsupervised and the children were never 

returned to her care.2

[8] On August 2, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parent-child 

relationship between Mother, Father, and the children. The termination 

hearing took place on October 19, 2017, and February 12, 2018. On March 13, 

2018, the trial court issued its order terminating the parent-child relationships. 

Mother now appeals.3

 

2 The children did briefly return to Father’s care, but they were returned to foster care after he engaged in 

domestic violence with his new wife.

3

Father has not appealed the termination order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 5 of 9

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[9] Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence does not support the trial 

court’s termination order. Our standard of review with respect to termination 

of parental rights proceedings is well established. In considering whether 

termination was appropriate, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess 

witness credibility. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 

(Ind. 2013). We will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that 

may be drawn therefrom in support of the judgment, giving due regard to the 

trial court’s opportunity to judge witness credibility firsthand. Id. Where, as 

here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not 

set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. In making that 

determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly 

supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the 

judgment. Id. at 1229-30. It is “sufficient to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened by 

the respondent parent’s custody.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 

839 N.E.2d 143, 148 (Ind. 2005).

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

parental rights for a CHINS must make the following allegations:

(A) that one (1) of the following is true:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 6 of 9

(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at 

least six (6) months under a dispositional decree.

(ii) A court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-5.6 

that reasonable efforts for family preservation or 

reunification are not required, including a 

description of the court’s finding, the date of the 

finding, and the manner in which the finding was 

made.

(iii) The child has been removed from the parent and 

has been under the supervision of a local office or 

probation department for at least fifteen (15) months 

of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, 

beginning with the date the child is removed from 

the home as a result of the child being alleged to be 

a child in need of services or a delinquent child;

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons 

for placement outside the home of the parents will 

not be remedied.

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a 

threat to the well-being of the child.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been 

adjudicated a child in need of services;

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 7 of 9

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

of the child.

DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. 

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230.

II. Reasons for Removal

[11] Mother’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by finding that 

there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the initial and 

continued removal of the children from her care and custody will not be 

remedied.4

[12] The reason that the children were originally removed from Mother’s care and 

custody was two-fold: domestic violence between the parents and the bruises 

found on some of the children. Mother notes that she and Father are no longer 

together; consequently, she maintains that domestic violence is no longer a 

concern. We note that the end of one relationship does not preclude domestic 

violence from arising in a future relationship if the underlying issues are not 

addressed. Regardless, even if we accept for argument’s sake that domestic 

violence is no longer an issue in this case, the other condition resulting in the 

initial removal—Mother’s anger issues and physical abuse of the children—

continues to be a cause of significant concern.

 

4 Mother briefly mentions the other elements of the termination statute but does not make any argument 

related to them. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 8 of 9

[13] Indeed, Mother’s behavior with the children during visits is part of the reason 

they have continued to be removed from her care. She frequently yelled at the 

children during visits and stormed off in anger, ending the visits prematurely. 

This behavior occurred as recently as December 2017, in between the two days 

of the termination hearing. She continually favored the youngest child, M.H., 

often ignoring the three older boys and failing to show them affection. The trial 

court found, based on these facts, that Mother “failed to demonstrate a 

minimally-acceptable level of anger control when dealing with her children and 

others.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 26.

[14] In addition to Mother’s inability to control her anger when with the children, 

they continued to be removed from her care because of issues related to her 

financial stability and sobriety. While Mother was able to maintain 

employment and independent housing for a time during the CHINS case, she 

quit her job several months before the termination hearing, remained 

unemployed, and was living with her grandmother. She also failed to comply 

with the trial court’s directive to refrain from drug use, testing positive for 

marijuana regularly throughout the CHINS case.

[15] Mother emphasizes that she largely complied with court-ordered services. We 

do not disagree with that statement, but note that although she participated, she 

failed to benefit from those services. See In re A.H., 832 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2005) (mere participation with services does not establish that 

conditions have been remedied if the services do not result in the needed change 

and the parent does not acknowledge a need for change). Mother did not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-898 | October 11, 2018 Page 9 of 9

benefit in any significant way from substance abuse treatment, home-based 

counseling, or anger management services. The simple truth is that Mother had 

over two years to work towards remedying the conditions that resulted in her 

children’s removal, but she failed to do so, and it is not fair to the children to 

make them live in limbo indefinitely. See, e.g., In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273, 

275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (holding that a court is not required to place children 

on a shelf until a parent is able to care for them properly).

[16] We find that the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that 

there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the initial and 

continued removal of the children from Mother’s care and custody will not be 

remedied. Therefore, the trial court did not err by terminating the parent-child 

relationship.

[17] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.