Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 1 of 13

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of E.M., G.M., and Q.M., Minor 

Children, 

P.M., Mother,

Appellant,

v. 

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services, 

Appellee. 

September 9, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-497 

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Bob A. Witham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos. 

33C01-1807-JT-28 

33C01-1807-JT-29 

33C01-1807-JT-30 

Brown, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 2 of 13

[1] P.M. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights with 

respect to her children, E.M., G.M., and Q.M. Mother raises one issue which 

we revise and restate as whether the trial court’s grant of DCS’s request to cease 

efforts to reunify her with her children violated her right to due process under 

Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother had three children, E.M., born on April 23, 2003, G.M., born on 

September 13, 2004, Q.M., born on January 16, 2006. In September 2016, 

DCS filed separate petitions alleging that the children were in need of services

(“CHINS”) under cause numbers 33C01-1609-JC-110 (“Cause No. 110”), 

33C01-1609-JC-111 (“Cause No. 111”), and 33C01-1609-JC-112 (“Cause No. 

112”), based upon a situation in which Mother was the victim of a stabbing 

while the children were present and she tested positive for methamphetamine. 

On February 14, 2016, the court held a hearing, and Mother and the children’s 

father entered admissions, and the court found the children to be CHINS. On 

February 27, 2017, the court entered an Order on Fact Finding Hearing under 

Cause Nos. 110, 111, and 112, which found that Mother admitted in part that 

she has a substance abuse issue in the home where the children reside and 

“certain mental health concerns, which negatively impacts her ability to provide 

care to Children.” Appellant’s Supplemental Appendix Volume II at 60. 

[3] On June 13, 2017, DCS filed a progress report alleging Mother failed to make 

progress under Cause Nos. 110, 111, and 112. On July 26, 2017, the court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 3 of 13

entered an Order on Periodic Case Review indicating that Mother did not 

appear at a June 30, 2017 hearing, but her attorney did appear. The order 

stated that Mother had not complied with the children’s case plan and had not 

visited the children. The order also states:

4. The children’s case plan, services, and placement meet the 

special needs and best interests of the children. DCS has made 

reasonable efforts to provide family services and/or to finalize 

another permanency plan.

5. The projected date for the children’s completion of the 

permanency plan is 8/14/17.

6. It is an appropriate time to implement a permanency plan for 

the children.

7. [] DCS will file Cease Efforts if no improvement in 

compliance with services.

Id. at 123.

[4] On September 27, 2017, DCS filed a Permanency Report which indicated 

Mother’s lack of progress and participation and that she had a previous 

outstanding warrant from a charge on July 17, 2017, for possession of 

marijuana, was arrested on September 19, 2017, and was in the Henry County 

Jail on three counts of possession of a controlled substance as well as counts of

possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of a syringe, possession 

of marijuana, false informing/false reporting, and possession of paraphernalia. 

[5] In October 2017, the court granted DCS’s requests under Cause Nos. 110, 111, 

and 112 to cease efforts towards reunification and changed the permanency 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 4 of 13

plan to adoption. On November 6, 2017, the court entered an order granting 

DCS’s request to change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. 

[6] On July 26, 2018, DCS filed petitions to terminate the parent-child relationship

under cause numbers 33C01-1807-JT-28 (“Cause No. 28”), 33C01-1807-JT-29 

(“Cause No. 29”), and 33C01-1807-JT-30 (“Cause No. 30”). 

[7] On October 25, 2018, and January 18, 2019, the court held factfinding hearings. 

Mother testified that a woman attacked her in front of the children and stabbed 

her once resulting in seventeen staples and that G.M. leapt out of the car to try 

to protect her. She testified that she was drug tested and failed. She 

acknowledged that she had children involved with DCS dating back to 2008

when a welfare check was performed and she had marijuana and again in 2012 

when there were concerns about her children’s safety and she failed a drug test. 

She testified that she moved about once a year and was homeless when recently 

incarcerated. She acknowledged that the children had not been in her care 

since September 2016 and that she had been incarcerated for approximately a 

year since then. She indicated that DCS offered her inpatient treatment, IOP,

and substance abuse classes and that she did not attend inpatient treatment or 

IOP. When asked if she always complied with DCS screening requests since 

September 2016, she answered: “Not always.” Transcript Volume II at 39. 

When asked if it was fair to say that DCS had worked with her on and off since 

2008 to try to help her maintain her relationship with her boys, she answered 

affirmatively. When asked what services she engaged in other than through 

DCS since September 2016, she indicated that she completed a parenting class 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 5 of 13

the beginning of that week and a substance abuse class during her previous 

incarceration. When asked if she ever contacted Family Case Manager Hailey 

Thornburg (“FCM Thornburg”), she answered: “I don’t believe so.” Id. at 47.

[8] Mother acknowledged that she had pending charges of possession of 

methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, unlawful possession of a syringe, 

possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. The court admitted 

a plea agreement related to the pending case of cause number 33C02-1809-F6-

472, and Mother indicated that the case had not been adjudicated yet but her 

plan was to plead guilty pursuant to the plea agreement to possession of 

methamphetamine as a level 6 felony. The court also admitted the 

chronological case summary for cause number 33C02-1709-F6-442, which 

indicates that Mother pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and 

unlawful possession of a syringe as level 6 felonies in January 2018 and was 

sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 500 days. 

[9] On cross-examination, Mother testified that she successfully completed a 

parenting class and believed she would receive a certification but had not yet 

received it. She indicated that she received “some certificate of completion” of 

a substance abuse program at the end of 2017. Id. at 49. She stated that she 

had been incarcerated for approximately thirteen months since September 2016

and that her plea agreement in the pending case referred to a suspended 

sentence of 720 days. On redirect examination, Mother indicated that she did 

not take any classes during the fourteen months since the case had been 

initiated and when she was not incarcerated. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 6 of 13

[10] Susan Stamper, the Director of the Henry County CASA office, testified that 

she believed moving forward with the termination of Mother’s parental rights 

was in the best interest of the children and that the children had expressed their 

desire to be adopted. She also stated:

This is about reaching a permanency for the children. I greatly 

respect that [Mother] has a plan for upon her release, but it’s a 

beginning – a beginning as homeless and reestablishing herself 

and these boys have been in the system for two (2) years. 

[Mother] has got some work ahead of her and I believe 

historically she has not been able to hold it together. I wish her 

the best of luck at this time, but I think at this point we are 

talking about the boys and establishing their permanency.

Id. at 57.

[11] FCM Thornburg testified that she had been working with Mother’s case for 

about seven months, that she never met Mother outside of court, and that 

Mother never contacted her or submitted any reports or documentation of any 

program that she completed either in or out of jail. She also stated that DCS’s 

recommendation was termination of Mother’s parental rights. When asked on 

cross-examination whether she reached out to Mother, she answered: “Not 

personally, but I have attempted to make contact through other family 

members.” Id. at 63.

[12] On January 31, 2019, the court entered an order in Cause Nos. 28, 29, and 30 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to the children. The court found that the 

children had been removed from Mother for at least six months under 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 7 of 13

disposition decrees dated March 29, 2017, under Cause Nos. 110, 111, and 112; 

that DCS became involved when the children were present during an 

altercation at a gas station at which time Mother was attacked by another 

woman resulting in multiple cuts or stab wounds; and one of the children 

physically intervened in an attempt to protect her from the physical assault. 

The Court found:

7. The Department attempted to work with both Mother and 

Father but were unsuccessful in helping the family reunify.

8. The Court under the respective JC cause numbers issued an 

order ceasing efforts toward reunification as to both parents and 

changing the children’s permanency plan to termination of 

parental rights and adoption on October 6, 2017, that order being 

signed on November 6, 2017.

9. The Department offered services to Mother in an attempt to 

help her overcome the substance abuse issues that were 

negatively impacting her ability to parent the children.

10. The Department has twice previously been involved with 

this family, once in 2008, and once in 2012, providing services on 

each occasion. The children were reunited with a parent 

successfully on both occasions.

11. The Department offered multiple services to [Mother], 

including but not limited to Intensive Outpatient Substance 

Treatment, Inpatient Substance Treatment, and Random 

Substance Screens.

12. During the pendency of this case, [Mother] has been 

incarcerated in the Henry County Jail for at least 13 months.

13. [Mother], upon advice of counsel, asserted her right against 

self-incrimination when the Department questioned about her 

continued use of illegal substances. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 8 of 13

14. Henry County CASA Director Susan Stamper testified that it 

was her opinion that moving forward with Termination of 

Parental Rights with regard to the . . . children was important to 

provide them with permanency and stability.

15. The options of guardianship and adoption have been 

discussed with [Q.M.], [G.M.], and [E.M.] by persons 

representing CASA and DCS.

16. After those discussions, both CASA and the Department 

continue to support the position that Termination of the ParentChild Relationship with [Mother] be effectuated so that the 

children can be provided permanency through adoption.

Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 47-48. The court found that there was a 

reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a 

threat to the well-being of the children and that termination was in the 

children’s best interests. 

Discussion

[13] The issue is whether the trial court’s grant of DCS’s request to cease efforts to 

reunify Mother with her children violated her right to due process under Article 

1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. Mother acknowledges that she did not object to 

DCS’s stoppage of efforts during the CHINS proceedings or raise the issue 

during the termination proceedings, but she asserts that the error constituted 

fundamental error. She contends that her right to due process of law under the 

Indiana Constitution was violated when the court allowed DCS to cease 

reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 9 of 13

[14] Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution provides: “All courts shall be 

open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or 

reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be 

administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; 

speedily, and without delay.” Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution provides in part that “[n]o state shall make or 

enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of 

the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or 

property, without due process of law . . . .” 

[15] Ind. Code § 31-34-21-5.5 is titled “Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify 

families,” and subsection (b) provides in part: “[e]xcept as provided in section 

5.6 of this chapter, the department shall make reasonable efforts to preserve and 

reunify families . . . .” “Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.8 provides that DCS is 

not required to provide services for reunification if it is contrary to the 

permanency plan adopted by the trial court.” In re A.D.W., 907 N.E.2d 533, 

538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Moreover, this Court has previously held that “the 

provision of family services is not a requisite element of our parental rights 

termination statute” and that “[a] failure to provide services . . . does not serve 

as a basis on which to directly attack a termination order as contrary to law.” 

In re E.E., 736 N.E.2d 791, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

[16] On appeal, Mother cites to the progress reports dated June 13, 2017, and 

September 27, 2017 report. However, both reports detail her lack of progress. 

The June 13, 2017 report stated that services to finalize a plan of reunification 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 10 of 13

included case management services, substance abuse assessment and treatment 

recommendations, inpatient substance abuse programming at Tara Treatment 

Facility, random drug screens, and individual/family therapy. The report 

stated that referrals were made for a substance abuse assessment to both Anchor 

Behavioral and Meridian and Mother had not completed a substance abuse 

assessment. It stated that a referral for case management was made to 

Meridian, but Mother had not participated in case management services. It 

stated that the family case manager offered inpatient substance abuse treatment 

to Mother and she declined “saying that she does not need this service.” 

Appellant’s Supplemental Appendix Volume II at 93. According to the report, 

Mother’s drug screens included positive screens for THC on September 30, 

2016, and November 4, 2016; Mother refused screening on February 4, 2017, 

and told the case manager that her screen would be positive for THC, Xanax, 

Klonapin, and Ritalin; she tested positive for THC on February 17, 2017; she

tested positive for THC and methamphetamine on March 22, 2017; and she 

failed to show up for a drug screen on March 23, 2017. With respect to 

visitation, the report stated:

[Mother’s] original supervised visit provider, Meridian[,]

canceled their service with her on 3/28/17 due to too many 

missed visits with the boys. This referral was made on 10/18/16. 

[Mother] did not engage in regular visitation with the boys until 

the beginning [of] November. During this service she was 

inconsistent in her visitation and would often try and bring 

strange men and other children to the visit. The service provider 

would report that she was often not able to regulate her emotions 

and spent a lot of time crying in front of the boys.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 11 of 13

A new referral for supervised visit was made on 4/4/17 to 

Family Community Partner. [Mother] has been engaging in 

weekly visits with the boys in Muncie. She has canceled one visit 

telling the provider that she had to handle “court stuff.”

Id. at 94-95. The report stated: “To date [Mother] and [Father] have not 

participate[d] in services to address their mental health and substance abuse. 

Both parents have been inconsistent/inappropriate in their visitation with the 

boys.” Id. at 96. The report stated: “FCM has learned that [Mother] was 

pulled over by LEA on 3/10/17 and now has pending charges for unlawful 

possession of a syringe and possession of a controlled substance. Her next 

hearing for these charges in scheduled at the Henry County Court for 7/3/17. 

[Mother] to date has not notified FCM of these charges.” Id. at 98. The report 

indicated that Mother “reported to FCM that she attempted suicide in 

November by slitting her wrists” and “[s]he has declined inpatient help or 

treatment offers from FCM.” Id. at 99. 

[17] The September 27, 2017 report stated that: a referral was made for case 

management but Mother had not participated in services; a referral for a 

substance abuse assessment was made to Anchor on February 23, 2017, but 

Mother had not completed the assessment; and a referral for a substance abuse 

assessment was made to Meridian on April 3, 2017, Mother completed a 

substance abuse evaluation on June 26, 2017, but never returned to participate 

in the recommended treatment, and the case was closed. The report also stated:

[DCS] would like to ask the Court of [sic] order a Cease of 

Efforts towards Reunification efforts in regards to [Father] and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 12 of 13

[Mother] with their children [G.M.], [Q.M.] and [E.M.] and to 

establish a new Permanency Plan of Adoption for the boys. This 

recommendation is due to [Father] and [Mother’s] history of 

multiple substantiations for neglect/previous CHINS case in 

2008, past and current criminal history/charges, a history of 

untreated mental health issues/unstability, past and current 

substance abuse use, and a history of instability regarding being 

able to provide the boys with proper housing and maintaining an 

income sufficient to raise three boys.

Id. at 134. The report indicated that Mother was made aware of or invited to 

child and family team meetings scheduled for June 19, 2017, March 17, 2017, 

and December 13, 2016, but did not attend. The report also indicated that a 

new referral for supervised visits was made on April 4, 2017, that Mother 

canceled a visit in May and missed all visits for June, and the provider then 

closed out her case due to “no call, no shows, the entire month of June.” Id. at 

133. It also indicated that Mother was in the Henry County Jail after an arrest 

on September 19, 2017, on three counts of possession of a controlled substance

as well as possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of a syringe, 

possession of marijuana, false informing/false reporting, and possession of 

paraphernalia. We also note that Mother does not point to any evidence that 

she specifically requested visitation or other services. 

[18] In light of the record, we cannot say that Mother’s rights under Article 1, 

Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-497 | September 9, 2019 Page 13 of 13

United States Constitution were violated.1

 See In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 148 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (observing that the absence of services was due to the 

father’s incarceration and that he did not point to any evidence that he 

specifically requested visitation or other services, and holding that the inability 

to provide services did not amount to a denial of due process); Castro v. State 

Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“Because 

of [the father’s] incarceration, not only was the [Monroe County Office of 

Family and Children (“MCOFC”)] unable to offer services to him, but it was 

unable to even fully evaluate him to determine what services are necessary. 

MCOFC’s failure to offer services to [the father] does not constitute a 

deprivation of his due process rights.”), trans. denied.

[19] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

[20] Affirmed.

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J.

 

1 Mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the termination of her parental 

rights.