Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 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

Deidre L. Monroe

Public Defender’s Office

Gary, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

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 

Relationships of: J.H., J.P., and 

Ja.H. (Minor Children),

J.H. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

August 15, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-677

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Thomas P. 

Stefaniak, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

45D06-1605-JT-116

45D06-1605-JT-117

45D06-1607-JT-179

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 12

[1] J.H. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating the parent-child 

relationship between Mother and J.H., J.P., and Ja.H. (collectively, the 

children). Mother argues that the evidence does not support the termination. 

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Mother is the mother of J.H., born in July 2010; J.P., born in September 2013; 

and Ja.H., born in August 2014.1 On September 26, 2013, Department of Child 

Services (DCS) received a report that stated that Mother had tested positive for 

marijuana when J.P. was born. Mother admitted to using marijuana but stated 

that she had stopped using approximately one month before J.P.’s birth. On 

October 8, 2013, the trial court approved an informal adjustment, during which 

Mother inconsistently participated in services and DCS had difficulty

contacting Mother.

[3] On April 14, 2014, DCS received a report that alleged that Mother was using 

drugs and was physically abusing J.H. DCS family case manager Rebecca 

Ramon (FCM Ramon) investigated the report and found no bruises on J.H. 

FCM Ramon found that Mother did not have appropriate sleeping 

arrangements for J.P.; she gave Mother three days to find a crib or other 

 

1 Mother has a fourth child who was approximately two years old at the time of the termination hearing and 

who has remained in Mother’s care.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 3 of 12

appropriate sleeping item for the child. Additionally, Mother submitted a drug 

screen that tested positive for marijuana, and she admitted to marijuana use.

[4] On April 23, 2014, DCS received a report that alleged that Mother had left J.H. 

and J.P., who were then three years old and six months old, home alone. FCM 

Ramon returned to the home; Mother stated that the children had been sleeping 

when she needed to go to the store, and she had not wanted to wake them. 

That same day, J.H. and J.P. were removed from Mother’s home and placed in 

foster case.

[5] On April 24, 2014, DCS filed a petition alleging that J.H. and J.P. were 

Children in Need of Services (CHINS). The same day, the trial court found the 

children to be CHINS. On June 9, 2014, a dispositional hearing took place, 

and the trial court ordered Mother to submit to random drug screens; complete 

an initial clinical assessment and follow all recommendations; participate in 

parenting education; attend supervised visitation with the children; complete a 

substance abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations; and participate in 

homebased casework. The trial court approved J.H. and J.P.’s placement with 

their maternal aunt. 

[6] Sometime after J.H. and J.P. were removed, Mother lost her housing and 

struggled to obtain other housing. On August 5, 2014, Ja.H. was born; the 

baby’s meconium tested positive for marijuana. Mother also tested positive for 

marijuana. On August 6, 2014, DCS removed Ja.H. from Mother’s care, and 

on August 7, 2014, DCS filed a petition alleging Ja.H. to be a CHINS. A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 4 of 12

hearing took place that same day, and the trial court placed Ja.H. with her 

siblings with their maternal aunt. On September 29, 2014, Mother admitted to 

the allegations, and Ja.H. was found to be a CHINS. On January 14, 2015, 

Mother was ordered to complete a psychological evaluation and participate in 

homebased therapy. Also in 2015, Mother was pregnant with her youngest 

child, who is not part of this case; when she was approximately nine months 

pregnant, Mother was living at a domestic violence shelter. After the child was 

born, Mother stayed on her own mother’s couch, but she testified that her 

mother made her feel like her youngest child was not welcome.

[7] Meanwhile, by December 2014, Mother had missed at least five visits with the 

children. Between January 23 and February 23, 2015, Mother missed ten visits. 

Between July 2014 and July 2015, Mother continued to test positive for 

marijuana. From June 24, 2015, to July 1, 2015, Mother was in an inpatient 

substance abuse treatment center. From August 2015 through March 2016, 

Mother submitted clean drug screens, but after March 2016, Mother again 

tested positive for marijuana. 

[8] In spring 2016, Mother inherited $80,000 following the death of her father. 

Around this time, Mother was not fully compliant with services. She was not 

submitting drug screens, and her visits with the children were suspended due to 

her failure to attend. On May 2, 2016, DCS filed its petition to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights. In May or June 2016, Latrice Roberts joined the case 

as the new family case manager (FCM Roberts). In September 2016, DCS 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 5 of 12

secured Mother a place at the same substance abuse treatment center, but 

Mother refused to go.

[9] In December 2016, Mother entered another facility for a ten-day substance 

abuse program; at this time, she tested positive for marijuana. Mother 

completed the inpatient part of treatment, but she did not return for the 

outpatient component. That same month, Mother accepted Section 8 housing 

in Tennessee, and moved. In February 2017, she again tested positive for

marijuana. 

[10] In June 2017, Mother’s services were reinstated; she was referred to homebased 

casework, individual and family therapy, random drug screens, hair follicle 

screens, and inpatient drug rehab. Mother did not submit drug screens and did 

not participate in therapy. In July 2017, DCS attempted to place the children in 

Mother’s care, and an Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC) 

was filed. However, the home study came back as the apartment being vacant 

and the ICPC was denied because Mother was not present for the home study.

[11] Mother also had difficulty with her homebased services. She was referred to 

Angela Ruiz for homebased services, but Ruiz initially had trouble contacting 

Mother. Shortly before the termination hearing, however, Mother had begun to 

comply with homebased services, and by November 2017, Mother had begun to 

participate to find housing in Indiana.

[12] Mother completed a psychological evaluation on November 7, 2017. The 

evaluation stated that Mother suffered from borderline intellectual functioning 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 6 of 12

and mild cannabis use disorder. Mother was recommended to participate in

individual therapy to help her process her feelings and cope with life’s stressors 

and to participate in substance abuse counseling and education.

[13] At some point during the case, after the children were placed with their 

maternal aunt, their aunt passed away. Their aunt’s daughter began caring for 

the children. J.H. has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He has 

received mental health services, which have focused on addressing his 

behaviors and anger management skills. J.H.’s behavior has improved; he is 

better able to manage his impulse behaviors and exhibits fewer angry outbursts. 

His service provider testified that he needs to continue with medication and 

services as he works on these issues. J.P. has some speech delays; J.P. is not as 

hyper as J.H., but has begun mimicking his brother’s behavior. Ja.H. is quiet, 

but her vocabulary has improved. 

[14] A hearing on DCS’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights took place 

on November 20, 2017, and January 31, 2018. During the hearing, Mother 

testified that the money she had inherited was gone; she “had looked out for 

[her] family” and “had bought a lot of stuff.” Tr. p. 38. She also testified that 

she had spent $4,000 or $5,000 a month on partying, and she had spent 

approximately $20,000 to decorate the house in which she was living. She 

further testified that she was expecting to receive another substantial inheritance

from her father’s estate. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 7 of 12

[15] At the time of the termination hearing, Mother did not have independent 

housing or employment and was again living with her mother. Mother was 

attending visitation at the time of the hearing. However, FCM Roberts testified 

that since December 2016, Mother had missed approximately thirty-five percent 

of her visits. FCM Roberts recommended that Mother’s parental rights be 

terminated and testified that it was in the children’s best interests to be adopted. 

The children’s cousin who was caring for them was willing to adopt them. On 

February 13, 2018, the trial court ordered Mother’s parental rights be 

terminated. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[16] 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 8 of 12

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).

[17] 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:

(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 9 of 12

(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.

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

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

II. Remedy of Reasons for Removal

[18] Mother first argues that the trial court erred by finding that there is a reasonable 

probability that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal will not be 

remedied. The children were originally removed from Mother’s care and 

custody because Mother left J.H. and J.P., who were then three years old and 

six months old, home alone, because Mother used marijuana, and because 

Mother had unstable housing when Ja.H. was born.

[19] During the CHINS case, Mother continued to use marijuana. She consistently 

tested positive for marijuana between July 2014 and July 2015. Although she 

made some progress in abstaining from marijuana, she did not maintain her

progress and began to use again, testing positive for the drug in December 2016 

and in February 2017. She also admitted to using the drug two months before 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 10 of 12

the termination hearing. Despite admitting that she uses marijuana as a coping 

mechanism, at the time of the termination hearing, she had not addressed the 

underlying cause of her drug use. 

[20] Mother also struggled to maintain stable housing. Despite receiving a 

substantial inheritance during the case, at the time of the termination hearing, 

Mother did not have independent housing and was living with her mother, who 

she testified had previously made her feel like her youngest child was not 

welcome in the home. Further, Mother did not consistently participate in 

services to fully address the reasons for DCS’s involvement. She did not 

complete substance abuse treatment, did not consistently submit to random 

drug screens, and did not consistently participate in individual therapy. Mother 

waited until approximately two weeks before the termination hearing to 

complete her psychological evaluation.

[21] In addition, Mother did not consistently attend visits with the children. By

December 2014, Mother had missed five visits. Between January 23 and 

February 23, 2015, Mother missed ten visits. At some point during the case, 

Mother’s visits were suspended due to her failure to attend. Although Mother’s 

visits were eventually reinstated, at the termination hearing, FCM Roberts 

testified that since December 2016, Mother had missed approximately thirtyfive percent of her visits. 

[22] In sum, over the course of the CHINS case, Mother did not successfully

participate with court-ordered services designed to remedy the reasons for the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 11 of 12

children’s initial removal. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err 

by finding that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in 

the children’s removal will not be remedied.2 

III. Children’s Best Interests 

[23] Mother also argues that the trial court erred by finding that termination is in the 

children’s best interests.

[24] The evidence in the record shows that Mother is unable or unwilling to provide 

stability and make good decisions that will benefit the children. Mother left her 

then three-year-old and six-month-old home alone. After they were removed 

from Mother’s care, Mother lost their apartment and struggled to reobtain

stable housing. She was homeless for a period of time, during which she lived 

at a domestic violence shelter and on her mother’s couch. At one point during 

the case, she obtained housing in another state; by the time of the termination 

hearing, she was back with her mother. Although she could have used her 

inheritance to obtain stable housing, she instead spent the money on herself and 

on decorating the house she was renting at the time. 

[25] In addition, Mother could not provide the children with a drug-free 

environment. She did not effectively use the services provided to her; she failed 

 

2 Mother also appears to challenge the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well-being. Because that prong 

and the one regarding remedy of reasons for removal are phrased in the disjunctive, we need not and will not 

consider this argument. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-677 | August 15, 2018 Page 12 of 12

to consistently participate in visitation with the children or in individual therapy

or successfully complete substance abuse treatment. She did not complete her 

psychological evaluation until approximately two weeks before the termination 

hearing. 

[26] J.H.’s therapist testified that it was essential for J.H. to have structure and 

permanency, and she recommended that J.H. remain in his pre-adoptive home. 

FCM Roberts testified that termination of parental rights and adoption was in 

the children’s best interests.

[27] Mother argues that the trial court failed to credit her with the time she stayed 

clean, failed to consider that the substance abuse treatment that she attended

was not appropriate for a marijuana user, failed to consider her plans to obtain 

housing with the second inheritance she expects to receive, and failed to 

acknowledge the visits that she did have with the children. These arguments 

amount to requests that we reweigh the evidence and second-guess the trial 

court’s assessment of witnesses, which we may not do.

[28] We find that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination 

of the parent-child relationship is in the children’s best interests.

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

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