Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 1 of 15

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

Michael R. Auger

Franklin, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorney 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: O.Q., a Minor Child,

L.Q.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

July 31, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A05-1412-JT-587

Appeal from the Johnson Circuit 

Court

The Honorable K. Mark Loyd, 

Judge, and The Honorable Marla 

Clark, Magistrate

Cause No. 41C01-1404-JT-13

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 2 of 15

Statement of the Case

[1] L.Q. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights over 

her minor child O.Q. (“Child”). Mother raises a single issue for our review, 

namely, whether the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable 

probability that the conditions which resulted in the removal of Child would 

not be remedied was clearly erroneous. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to Child on December 14, 2012.

1

 In June 2013, Mother and 

Child were living in Franklin with N.A., with whom Mother had a romantic 

relationship. On June 23, Mother and N.A. “were arrested after law 

enforcement was called to the house for a domestic violence incident which 

occurred while [Mother] was holding the child.” Appellant’s App. at 2.

While at the home, law enforcement was shown a stash of 

heroin, syringes, burnt spoons, a vial of a liquid substance, a 

powder substance, and drug papers.

Both [Mother] and [N.A.] have ongoing substance abuse 

problems and both have been responsible for the child’s care 

while under the influence of illegal substances. Both are aware of 

the other’s substance abuse problems.

[Mother and N.A.] were arrested on or about June 23, 2013[,]

and charged with preliminary charges of domestic battery, drugrelated offenses and neglect of a dependent.

 

1

 Child’s father, T.D., does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 3 of 15

Id. Also on June 23, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) 

removed Child from Mother’s care. And on June 25, DCS filed a petition 

alleging that Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”) because of 

Mother’s history of substance abuse and domestic violence.

[3] At a hearing on the petition, Mother admitted that Child was a CHINS, and the 

trial court entered an order declaring Child a CHINS. And on July 30, the trial 

court ordered Mother to: maintain appropriate housing; not use controlled 

substances without a valid prescription; submit to random drug screens; 

complete a substance abuse evaluation; participate in home-based case 

management; not commit acts of domestic violence; and participate in domestic 

violence counseling. The trial court also ordered N.A. to participate in services.

[4] On April 30, 2014, DCS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of 

Mother’s parental rights to Child. Following an evidentiary hearing on the 

petition on September 24, 2014, the trial court entered the following relevant 

findings and conclusions in support of terminating Mother’s parental rights:

10. From July 201[3] to April 2014, Mother and [N.A.] 

remained together as a couple. DCS offered reunification 

services to each of them.

11. In April 2014, Mother requested [N.A.] be removed from the 

case as Mother no longer desired to be in a relationship with her.

12. By Order dated June 18, 2014, this Court issued an Order 

Modifying Dispositional Decree. This Order modified the 

court’s dispositional order of July 30, 2013, by removing [N.A.] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 4 of 15

from the case and ordering Mother to have no further contact 

with [N.A.]

13. This Court approved a change in permanency plan from 

reunification to a concurrent plan of adoption and reunification 

by order dated February 25, 2014.

14. Mother was ordered to complete a number of dispositional 

goals under the CHINS cause. In summary, the goals are:

a. maintain appropriate, safe, stable housing;

b. provide proof of financial resources to maintain 

the household;

c. allow a representative of CASA/DCS entry into 

the home;

d. maintain contact with DCS; pay child support as 

ordered by the Court;

e. not use, consume, or distribute any controlled 

substances;

f. demonstrate the ability to meet the child’s needs;

g. execute all consents for release of information for 

DCS/CASA to monitor progress in the matter;

h. participate in home-based case management, 

completing the reasonable recommendations of the 

service provider;

i. participate in parenting time as scheduled through 

DCS;

j. not commit any acts of domestic violence;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 5 of 15

k. submit to random drug screens within a 

reasonable time of the request;

l. submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow 

through with the reasonable recommendations of the 

provider; and

m. participate in domestic violence counseling and 

follow through with the reasonable recommendations 

of the provider.

15. In addition to the goals stated above, Mother was ordered to 

have no contact with [N.A.]

16. Mother has failed to establish and maintain safe and stable 

housing for herself or the child. Mother lived with [N.A.] from 

June 2013 to approximately April 2014, when she ended her 

relationship with [N.A.]

17. After leaving [N.A.] in April 2014, Mother lived with her 

grandmother for a couple of weeks before being asked to leave. 

From there, Mother lived with [a boyfriend named J.F.] in 

various hotels, and then in an apartment, until approximately 

one week before the hearing.

18. At the time of the hearing, Mother reported living with her 

grandmother again. She admits she had only spent a few nights 

at her grandmother’s prior to the hearing and that she also stays 

with friends. Further, this is the same grandmother who 

requested that Mother leave the house after staying there a 

couple of weeks in April 2014.

19. Mother has failed to provide proof of financial resources 

sufficient to maintain a household for herself and the child. 

Mother reported employment throughout the CHINS case, 

however, she did not provide proof of income to her home-based 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 6 of 15

provider when requested. While Mother has provided occasional 

pay-stubs to DCS, she has not provided proof of sufficient 

income to maintain a household to DCS or to this Court.

20. Mother has used controlled substances throughout the 

CHINS case. She was ordered to participate in and complete 

substance abuse treatment. Mother was discharged from three 

different programs and failed to complete substance abuse 

treatment.

21. Mother was initially referred to Take Back Control for 

substance abuse treatment and underwent an assessment there. 

She then requested another service provider and was referred to 

Adult and Child. After being referred to Adult and Child, 

Mother requested another referral to Take Back Control.

22. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from Take Back 

Control in January 2014, for continuing to have positive drug 

screens.

23. Mother was then referred to Adult and Child. She was 

unsuccessfully discharged in July 2014, because she failed to take 

responsibility for having used drugs after provided positive drug 

screens.

24. Mother’s substance abuse throughout the CHINS case has 

been significant based on the observations of service providers 

and the results of drug screens. She has had positive screens as 

recently as July 2014.

25. Mother remains at high risk for additional substance abuse in 

that she has not completed a substance abuse treatment 

[program] and is apparently now in a relationship with an 

individual, [J.F.], who Mother admits uses drugs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 7 of 15

26. Mother did not consistently participate in home-based 

services and has not completed the recommendations of the 

service provider.

27. Mother was referred to home-based services to work with 

Mother on housing, employment, and parenting skills. Mother 

met with the home-based provider fairly regularly; however, 

Mother did not progress in obtaining safe and stable housing for 

the child. The home-based provider also attempted to help keep 

Mother safe from repeated domestic violence with [J.F.] Mother 

failed to follow through with the provider’s suggestions to 

contact domestic violence shelters.

28. Mother did obtain and maintain employment; however, she 

did not provide DCS, the home-based worker, or the Court with 

proof of her financial resources.

29. Supervised parenting time was provided to Mother three 

days a week, for two hours each visit. Due to several missed 

appointments, Mother was required to contact the provider the 

day before the visit to confirm she would be participating in the 

visit. If Mother did not call the day before the visit, the visit 

would not occur. This plan was put in place because the service 

provider was transporting the child to the visit.

30. Mother failed to attend a visit as recently as one week prior 

to the hearing on DCS’s Verified Petition to Terminate her 

Parental Rights. Mother missed approximately twenty-five 

percent (25%) of her parenting time opportunities during the 

CHINS case.

31. Due to Mother’s lack of safe and stable housing throughout 

the CHINS matter, the parenting time occurred at Adult and 

Child. The parenting time was increased by one hour in July 

2014; however, Adult and Child could not recommend 

additional parenting time due to Mother’s lack of consistent 

participation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 8 of 15

32. Mother’s significant relationships during this case have both 

been marked by domestic violence. Mother was order[ed] to 

participate in domestic violence education and complete the 

reasonable recommendations of the provider.

33. After being unsuccessfully discharged from two domestic 

violence programs, Mother completed domestic violence 

education through Adult and Child with Robin Brown. Ms. 

Brown counseled Mother on the cycles of domestic violence, 

how domestic violence impacts children, and how to break the 

cycle. Ms. Brown also offered Mother assistance should she find 

herself in a domestic violence situation.

34. By Mother’s admission, her relationship with [N.A.] was 

marked with domestic violence. After being ordered to have no 

further contact with [N.A.], Mother petitioned for a protective 

order. However, the Order was dismissed when Mother did not 

appear at the hearing set on the petition.

35. After leaving [N.A.], Mother began living with [J.F.] In July 

2014, after Mother had completed domestic violence education 

with Ms. Brown, Mother accused [J.F.] of raping and beating 

her. Shortly after this incident, Mother was found sharing a hotel 

room with [N.A.], in violation of the no contact Order entered in 

the CHINS case.

36. Mother eventually moved back in with [J.F.] In September 

2014, approximately a week before the hearing, Mother again 

accused [J.F.] of hurting her.

37. Mother did not contact Ms. Brown for assistance or 

counseling after the domestic violence incidents with [J.F.] 

Mother also failed to seek out assistance from domestic violence 

shelters as recommended by her home-based case worker.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 9 of 15

38. The child’s health and safety was at risk during the domestic 

violence incident leading up to the child’s detention. Despite 

having completed domestic violence education, Mother has not 

demonstrated she is able to avoid domestic violence in her 

significant relationships.

39. The child was placed in the home of Mother’s grandmother 

when the child was detained. However, the child was moved to 

a licensed foster care home upon Mother’s request. It was 

discovered the grandmother was smoking around the child when 

the child’s doctors had requested she not be around cigarette 

smoke. This is the same home in which Mother now claims to 

be residing.

40. When Mother began to live with [J.F.] in April 2014, 

Mother reported to FCM Montgomery that he would participate 

in services and take drug screens. [J.F.] refused to submit to a 

drug screen when requested by family case manager Corina 

Harmless in September 2014. [J.F.] did not participate in any 

services.

41. The child has remained outside the home of the parents since 

her detention in June 2013.

42. It would be in the child’s best interest for the parent-child 

relationship to be terminated as Mother had not made significant 

progress toward remedying the issues that led to her removal.

43. DCS’s plan for the child’s continued care is adoption by her 

current foster parents.

II. CONCLUSIONS

* * *

2. The child has been removed from the parent for at least six (6) 

months under a dispositional decree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 10 of 15

3. The child has been removed from the parent and has been 

under the supervision of a county office of family and children or 

probation department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most 

recent twenty-two (22) months.

4. There is a reasonable probability the conditions that resulted 

in the child’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the 

home of the parents will not be remedied.

* * *

6. Mother has made little, if any, progress in completing her 

dispositional goals in over a year, despite several services having 

been provided to her. Mother has demonstrated a pattern of 

being involved in violent relationships. Mother’s failure to 

complete substance abuse treatment, in addition to her continued 

association with drug users, demonstrates Mother has not 

benefitted from the substance abuse treatment she did participate 

in.

7. There is a reasonable probability the continuation of the 

parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the 

child. Mother has made little, if any, progress in addressing the 

reasons for the Court’s involvement with the family. Continuing 

the parent-child relationship under the circumstances poses the 

threat of harm to the child.

8. Mother admitted that her substance abuse and history of being 

involved in domestic violence prevented her from effectively 

parenting [Child]. These circumstances have not changed in 

spite of Mother having assistance and opportunity to change 

them.

9. Termination of Mother’s parental rights is [in] the best 

interests of the child. The child has been in foster care since she 

was six months old, and an adoptive family has already been 

identified. She needs permanency and stability. She should not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 11 of 15

be forced to wait indefinitely for Mother to work toward 

reunification. Mother has demonstrated an inability to provide 

[Child] with a home that is free of violence and use of illegal 

substances, both of which are detrimental to her.

10. There is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the 

child, which is adoption.

Appellant’s App. at 17-22 (citations omitted). This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] We begin our review of this appeal by acknowledging that “[t]he traditional 

right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe 

Div. of Family & Children (In re M.B.), 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), 

trans. denied. However, a trial court must subordinate the interests of the 

parents to those of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding a 

termination. Schultz v. Porter Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re K.S.), 750 

N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Termination of a parent-child 

relationship is proper where a child’s emotional and physical development is 

threatened. Id. Although the right to raise one’s own child should not be 

terminated solely because there is a better home available for the child, parental 

rights may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet his or 

her parental responsibilities. Id. at 836.

[6] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS 

is required to allege and prove, among other things:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 12 of 15

(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.

* * *

(C) [and] that termination is in the best interests of the child . . . .

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).2 That statute provides that DCS need establish 

only one of the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) before the trial court may 

terminate parental rights. DCS’s “burden of proof in termination of parental 

rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child 

Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-

14-2).

[7] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Ofc. of 

Family & Children (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 that 

 

2

 Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) also allows DCS to allege that “[t]he child has, on two (2) separate 

occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of services.” But that additional, alternative provision is not 

relevant here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 13 of 15

are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, in deference to the trial 

court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside the court’s 

judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. 

Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1999). trans. denied.

[8] Here, in terminating Mother’s parental rights, the trial court entered specific

findings of fact and conclusions thereon. When a trial court’s judgment 

contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of 

review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 

2005). First, we 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 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 trial court’s 

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

[9] Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact in its order 

terminating her parental rights. Rather, Mother challenges only the court’s 

legal conclusion that, on these facts, termination of her parental rights is 

justified because Mother will not remedy the conditions that resulted in Child’s 

removal. But, again, Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the 

disjunctive, and the trial court concluded both that Mother will not remedy the 

conditions that resulted in Child’s removal and that the continuation of the 

parent-child relationship poses a threat to the well-being of Child. Because 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 14 of 15

Mother does not challenge the trial court’s conclusion under 31-35-2-

4(b)(2)(B)(ii), that issue is waived.

[10] Waiver notwithstanding, DCS presented sufficient evidence to support the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights, and the trial court’s conclusions are not 

clearly erroneous. 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 terminating the parent-child 

relationship. Shupperd v. Miami Cnty. Div. of Family & Children (In re E.S.), 762 

N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). When the evidence shows that the 

emotional and physical development of a child in need of services is threatened, 

termination of the parent-child relationship is appropriate. Id.

[11] The undisputed evidence shows that Child was removed from Mother’s care 

only a few months after Child’s birth. During the CHINS proceedings, Mother 

did not maintain consistent contact with her family case manager; she has not 

maintained suitable or stable housing; she has continued to be involved in

abusive personal relationships; she has not consistently visited with Child; she 

did not follow through on substance abuse treatment recommendations; and 

she failed several drug screens, including as recently as July 2014. Mother’s 

contentions on appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which 

we will not do. Again, Mother does not challenge any of the trial court’s 

findings on appeal. And those findings support the trial court’s conclusions that 

there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child’s 

removal will not be remedied and that the continuation of the parent-child 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1412-JT-587 | July 31, 2015 Page 15 of 15

relationship poses a threat to Child’s well-being. The findings also support the 

trial court’s conclusions that termination is in the best interests of Child and 

that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of Child. We hold 

that the trial court did not err when it terminated Mother’s parental rights to 

Child.

[12] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.