Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 1 of 20

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 R.L.J.,

FATHER

Carlos I. Carrillo

Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT R.A.T.,

MOTHER

Cynthia Phillips Smith

Law Office of Cynthia P. Smith

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine A. Cornelius

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Termination of the ParentChild Relationships of: Ne.T., 

Na.T., Ni.T., No.T. (Minor 

Children),

R.L.J. (Father)

and

R.A.T. (Mother),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

March 15, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A04-1710-JT-2391

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Faith A. Graham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

79D03-1702-JT-17

79D03-1702-JT-18

79D03-1702-JT-19

79D03-1702-JT-20
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 20

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

Baker, Judge.

[1] R.L.J. (Father) and R.A.T. (Mother) appeal the trial court’s order terminating 

their relationship with their children, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to 

support the order. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Father and Mother are the parents of three children: Ne.T., born in September 

2007, Na.T., born in February 2011, and Ni.T., born in June 2012. The fourth 

child, No.T., born in January 2015, has a different father, D.M., who 

voluntarily terminated his parental rights and does not participate in this 

appeal.

[3] On November 5, 2015, the Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition 

alleging that the children were children in need of services (CHINS). At that 

time, the children lived in a home with Mother, maternal grandmother,

maternal step-grandfather, and Mother’s then-boyfriend, T.N. (Stepfather). 

After receiving allegations that the children were being exposed to drug use, 

DCS performed a hair follicle test on all the children and requested that all 

adults in the home also submit to a drug test. Ni., age three, and No., age one, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 20

tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines. Ne. and Mother were negative 

for all substances and Na.’s hair was too short to test. Maternal grandmother 

was positive for cocaine and amphetamines and Stepfather and step-grandfather 

refused to be tested. DCS removed the children and placed them in foster care. 

Mother married Stepfather, whom she had known for one month, the next day. 

[4] In the weeks leading to the CHINS factfinding, Mother tested positive for 

amphetamines and methadone; she later admitted to taking Adderall and 

methadone without a prescription. On March 2, 2016, the trial court found all 

the children to be CHINS. With respect to Father, the trial court found that he 

had not established paternity for any of the children, had only recently obtained 

employment and housing, and did not have beds or childcare in place for the 

children. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered the parents to 

participate in the following services:

• Both parents were required to obtain and maintain safe and suitable 

housing and a stable and sufficient source of income.

• Both parents were ordered to participate in parenting time.

• Both parents were required to refrain from use of alcohol, illegal drugs, 

or prescription drugs with no prescription. They were also required to 

submit to random drug screens.

• Both parents were ordered to participate with home-based case 

management and comply with any recommendations.

• Both parents were ordered to complete a substance abuse assessment and 

comply with any recommendations.

• Both parents were ordered to establish paternity.

• Mother was ordered to complete a mental health assessment and comply 

with any recommendations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 20

Mother

[5] Mother’s participation with home-based case management was sporadic 

throughout the case. The purpose of that service was to assist Mother with 

basic needs, including housing searches, budgeting, employment, 

transportation, drug education, parenting education and skills, scheduling skills, 

and coping skills. Mother was discharged from this service at least three times 

and did not successfully meet any of the goals. She continued to be unable to 

maintain a consistent schedule, which was concerning because three of her 

children had high educational needs and needed to attend school and speech 

services regularly.

[6] Mother completed a mental health assessment in January 2016. The 

assessment recommended that Mother attend therapy to develop healthy coping 

mechanisms, manage her depression, process her past abusive relationships, 

and learn about healthy relationships. The assessment also recommended she 

work to obtain appropriate housing and address parenting issues. 

[7] In March 2016, Mother completed a substance abuse assessment. She admitted 

to illegal drug use and non-prescription drug abuse within the last twelve 

months. Mother was very defensive about substance use topics, which 

indicated she would be highly resistant to treatment. The assessment 

recommended bi-weekly therapy to work on controlling stress, addressing her 

depression, learning healthy coping mechanisms, processing her past abusive 

relationships, and addressing parenting issues.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 20

[8] Based on the recommendation of the mental health and substance abuse 

assessments, in March 2016, Mother began attending therapy. She missed 

more than half of the appointments, and the therapist discharged Mother from 

the service in July 2016. She was re-referred to therapy at some point in early 

2017, but was discharged unsuccessfully in April 2017 for failure to make 

contact. Mother stated that she intentionally stopped participating with therapy 

because she did not feel that she needed that service to learn coping skills. She 

admitted that she was depressed and that this condition made it difficult to 

complete services.

[9] Mother participated inconsistently with random drug screens, missing twentyfive screens between August 2016 and June 2017. She also tested positive for 

various substances throughout the case, including amphetamines, phentermine, 

synthetic cannabinoids, opiates, morphine, and marijuana. The screen she 

provided between two days of the termination hearing was positive for opiates 

and morphine. She was four months pregnant at that time.

[10] Mother attended visits inconsistently. She was unsuccessfully discharged from 

visits in July 2016 because she had missed so many sessions. She was rereferred to a new agency and progressed to having in-home visits. The visits 

returned to an agency, however, when Stepfather texted the Family Case 

Manager (FCM) and told her he would no longer allow any service providers or 

visits in the home. Mother moved out of that home so that she could continue 

to participate in home-based services, but made it clear that she would move 

back in with Stepfather after services had ended. In early 2017, Mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 20

requested that DCS re-screen her mother and stepfather, presumably so that she 

could move back in or have her visits there. Maternal grandmother tested 

positive for amphetamines, cocaine, and methadone; maternal step-grandfather 

tested positive for cocaine, norcocaine, codeine, morphine, and a heroin 

metabolite.

[11] Mother had a history of unstable housing. At the time the CHINS case was 

opened, she was living with her mother and stepfather. Then, Mother, 

Stepfather, and his grandmother lived in the grandmother’s home. Then, when 

Stepfather refused to allow service providers in the home, Mother lived with an 

aunt. On the first day of the termination hearing, Mother said she lived with 

her aunt but that her home was Stepfather’s grandmother’s home. She had 

never had independent housing and always lived with relatives.

[12] Mother married Stepfather the day after the children were removed, one month 

after she had met him. DCS was concerned about Stepfather because he

refused to screen at the time of removal and because he had very little 

involvement with his own children (who have, themselves, been involved with 

DCS) and would need help developing parenting skills. 

[13] Stepfather tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids in February and November 

2016. He participated in visits until January 2017, when he sent a threatening 

note to the FCM. After that time, Stepfather stopped visiting or participating.

[14] Stepfather completed a parenting assessment in the spring of 2016, which 

recommended he attend parenting classes and participate with individual 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 7 of 20

therapy to address anger management. Stepfather participated with services 

sporadically, expressing a lack of understanding of why he had to participate 

with services and opining that all the social workers and service providers 

wanted was government money. He believed that DCS kidnapped children to 

sell them into sex slavery and that DCS was permitted by law to lie in court, 

tamper with evidence, and plant evidence. He was consistently hostile and 

threatening to the FCM and other service providers.

Father

[15] Father completed a mental health assessment in December 2016. The 

assessment recommended individual therapy and a substance abuse assessment, 

among other things.

[16] Father had already been referred for individual therapy in early 2016. In April 

2016, he was unsuccessfully discharged for failing to attend. He was twice 

more re-referred, again failed to attend consistently, and was again 

unsuccessfully discharged.

[17] Father participated sporadically with home-based case management. In 

February 2016, the case manager noted Father’s home was dirty, cluttered, and 

garbage-ridden. He was unsuccessfully discharged in March 2016 for lack of 

consistent participation. He was re-referred for this service at some point and 

continued to participate sporadically throughout the case. Father also 

participated inconsistently with home-based therapy, and he was ultimately 

unsuccessfully discharged for lack of consistent attendance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 8 of 20

[18] In March 2016, Father completed a substance abuse assessment. The assessor 

diagnosed him with unspecified drug abuse, inhalant abuse, and major 

depressive affect disorder. The assessment recommended individual therapy 

and case management. As noted above, Father did not successfully participate 

with those services. After testing positive four times for synthetic marijuana, 

Father completed another substance abuse assessment in December 2016. The 

assessor diagnosed Father with synthetic cannabis use disorder and 

recommended that he participate in individual counseling, case management, 

and random drug screens.

[19] Father tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids in March, July, and November 

2016 and in January 2017. He frequently failed to attend his random screens, 

amassing twenty no-shows for screens at his home between July and October 

2016.

[20] In July 2016, Father loaned his ATM card to friends, who withdrew large sums 

of money and purchased alcohol. The FCM was concerned and went to 

Father’s home, where she found alcohol in the home and a green leafy 

substance on the dining table. Although that substance was never tested, Father 

tested positive for synthetic marijuana that same day. 

[21] Around that time, Father texted his home-based case manager, who also 

supervised his visits, and told her that he would attend no more visits and to 

leave him alone. For months thereafter, he refused to respond to the case 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 9 of 20

manager or schedule more visits. At some point, that service was again rereferred and he began working with a new case manager.

[22] The home-based case manager who was working with Father in January 2017 

noted that he struggled with communication skills, understanding, and hygiene. 

On February 6, 2017, the case manager arrived at his home for an appointment 

but Father did not answer the door. They spoke on the phone and Father’s 

speech was slow, slurred, and incoherent. The next day, Father attended an 

appointment with the case manager at which he was disorganized and 

unfocused. He also attended a visit to which he was a half hour late and 

appeared under the influence. He was unsuccessfully discharged the following 

week.

[23] With respect to visits, Father was initially consistent, though he struggled with 

hygiene, frequently became frustrated with Ne., and spoke poorly about Mother 

in front of the children. He stopped visiting the children after his positive drug 

screen in July 2016. Visits were re-referred in January 2017, but he was 

discharged for failing to schedule them. Service providers determined that the 

visits were having a negative emotional impact on the children, so the visits 

were never again re-referred. He has not seen his children since July 2016.

[24] Father’s housing was unstable throughout the proceedings. When the children 

were removed in November 2015, he was living with his sister. As of 

December 2015, he had his own home, but left that place in August 2016—

either his lease had expired or he was evicted. He found another apartment for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 10 of 20

three months but decided it was not safe, so he moved out. He then stayed with 

various friends. At the time of the termination hearing, he had lived at a new 

place for about six weeks with a friend; Father was not on the lease.

Termination Proceedings

[25] On February 14, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parent-child 

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

hearing took place on April 20, June 9, and June 14, 2017.

[26] At the time of the termination hearing, Father had not established paternity1 or 

obtained a driver’s license. He provided testimony on June 9 and was to be 

cross-examined on June 14, but he failed to appear in court on June 14. Father 

testified he felt that he had completed all required services, that DCS was 

merely finding reasons to prolong the case, and that he should have custody of 

his children. 

[27] Mother testified that she did not believe her mother used cocaine even though 

she tested positive for that substance twice during the proceedings. Mother 

believed her mother’s home would be safe for the children because her stepgrandfather had moved out. She stated neither case management nor therapy 

was helpful, which is why she stopped attending. She denied the accuracy of 

her drug screen that was positive for morphine. She and Stepfather were 

 

1 He completed a DNA test that revealed he is the biological father of the three children, but never opened a 

paternity case to establish legal paternity.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 11 of 20

expecting their first baby together in about five months, but she had not yet 

been to the doctor.

[28] Stepfather denied that there was drug use in maternal grandmother’s home or 

that he had used illegal substances. He claimed all urine samples throughout 

the case, including his own and the children’s, had been tampered with. He 

testified that DCS is a kidnapping ring for the government and that he did not 

believe Mother needed any services.

[29] On September 17, 2017, the trial court issued its order granting the petition to 

terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother, Father, and the 

children. The parents now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[30] 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 12 of 20

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).

[31] 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:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 13 of 20

(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

(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.

[32] Both parents argue that there is insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s 

findings that (1) there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in 

the children’s removal will not be remedied; (2) the continuation of the parentchild relationship poses a threat to the children’s well-being; and (3) termination 

is in the children’s best interests.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 14 of 20

II. Mother

A. Conditions Resulting in Removal

[33] The children were initially removed from Mother’s care and custody because of 

drug use in the home. They continue to be removed because of drug use 

concerns, Mother’s mental health, and general concerns about her parenting 

skills.

[34] With respect to drug use, Mother missed many screens and was positive for 

many others. Indeed, between the first and second days of the termination 

hearing, a period of seven weeks, Mother missed six screens and tested positive 

for morphine. She refused to admit that she had a substance abuse issue and 

refused to participate with therapy to address the problem. Stepfather has also 

tested positive for illicit substances during this case and has showed no 

willingness to participate with any services to address the issue.

[35] With respect to her mental health, Mother has depression, which she admits, 

but stopped attending therapy even though she admitted she could benefit from 

it. With respect to her parenting skills, Mother refused to participate with 

services designed to help her improve in that area. She failed to protect her 

children from her mother’s drug use and even at the termination hearing, 

refused to acknowledge the veracity of the drug tests showing that her mother 

had used cocaine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 15 of 20

[36] We find that this evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that there is a 

reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children’s initial 

and continued removal from Mother’s care and custody will not be remedied.

B. Continuation of Parent-Child Relationship

[37] Next, Mother argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s 

well-being.

[38] The CHINS case opened because two of the children tested positive for cocaine 

and amphetamines. While Mother’s screen was clean on that day, she had 

failed to protect them from serious drug use in the home. She has never 

seriously dealt with her own substance abuse issues. She has never seriously 

dealt with her own mental health issues. She has never seriously worked on 

learning how to manage the schedules of herself and four children, including 

ensuring that they go to school on a regular basis. 

[39] She married Stepfather after knowing him for only one month. He has been 

hostile and threatening to DCS and service providers throughout this case and 

believes that DCS is a kidnapping ring that sells children into sex slavery. He 

has never consistently participated with services. While Mother moved out so 

that her services could continue, she planned to move back in with Stepfather as 

soon as services had ended. Both Mother and Stepfather claim that the drug 

test results are false and refuse to accept any responsibility for the situation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 16 of 20

[40] The continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s 

well-being when the evidence shows that the adults are engaging in ongoing 

destructive and dangerous behavior without any real signs of improvement. In 

re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 807-08 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding such evidence 

where parents blamed others, externalized responsibility, attended services 

infrequently, and were generally uncooperative). We find that the evidence in 

this case supports just such a conclusion with respect to Mother. In other 

words, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the continuation 

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

C. Best Interests

[41] Finally, Mother contends that the trial court erred by finding that termination is 

in the children’s best interests. In addition to the evidence already discussed 

above, which we will not reiterate, we note that Mother was inconsistent with 

her visits with the children, had a history of unstable housing, failed to 

successfully complete a single service, and tested positive for morphine at the 

time of the termination hearing. 

[42] The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and the FCM testified that 

they believed termination was in the children’s best interests. The CASA noted 

that she believed Mother loved the children but was living in an inappropriate

home with Stepfather, who had not participated in services, and was unable to 

provide the children with a stable, drug-free home. The FCM testified that 

Mother refused to accept responsibility for her actions, lacked the skills to get 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 17 of 20

the children to school and meet their needs, and was unable to sustain any 

small amount of progress she had made. Indeed, in the FCM’s opinion, 

Mother may have regressed overall while the case was open. Both the CASA 

and the FCM had grave concerns about Stepfather, who would live with the 

children if they were placed with Mother. He refused to participate with 

services, expressed significant hostility, had voluntarily terminated his rights to 

one of his children and had little contact with his others, and had stopped 

spending time with the children in this case months before the termination 

hearing.

[43] Under these circumstances, we find sufficient evidence supporting the trial 

court’s conclusion that termination is in the children’s best interests.

III. Father

A. Conditions Resulting in Removal

[44] The children were initially removed because of drug use in Mother’s home. 

They were not placed with Father at that time because he did not have suitable, 

stable housing for them. They continue to be removed from Father because of 

concerns about his substance abuse issues, parenting and life skills, and unstable 

housing.

[45] Father lacked suitable and stable housing and a driver’s license when the case 

opened, and still lacked both as of the second day of the termination trial. He 

moved frequently throughout the case, often living with friends for brief periods 

of time without being on the lease. He was unable to maintain a home that was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 18 of 20

clean, uncluttered, and garbage-free. He failed to complete any services 

successfully. He tested positive for illicit substances more than once, missed 

many random drug screens, and has never completed the therapy 

recommended by his two substance abuse assessments. He halted visits with 

his children for months after he tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids; once 

visitation had been re-referred it was discharged because he failed to set up the 

visits. He had still not established paternity at the time of the termination 

hearing.

[46] We find this evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that there 

is a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to the children’s initial 

and continued removal from Father’s care and custody will not be remedied.

B. Continuation of Parent-Child Relationship

[47] Father next argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the continuation 

of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well-being. As 

noted above, Father has been unable to maintain stable, suitable, appropriate 

housing. He has not participated in parenting education or other services to 

improve his parenting skills, nor has he addressed his mental health issues. His 

visits (or the inconsistency thereof) became so harmful to the children that 

providers determined it was not in their emotional best interests to continue 

with the visits. Father tested positive for illegal substances multiple times 

during this case but he has never addressed his substance abuse issues. During 

the case, he had periods of unemployment interspersed with jobs requiring 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 19 of 20

overnight hours and/or long hours. He had no plans for childcare, getting the 

children to and from school, or suitable housing, should the children be placed 

with him.

[48] We find that this evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that 

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s 

well-being.

C. Best Interests

[49] Finally, Father argues that the trial court erred by finding that termination is in 

the children’s best interests. As noted above, despite many opportunities, 

Father has failed to sufficiently address any of his underlying issues. His 

presence in the children’s lives at visits—and/or his extremely inconsistent 

attendance at those visits—was actively causing them emotional harm. 

[50] The CASA believed that termination is in the children’s best interests because 

Father had been discharged from all services and did not have stable housing. 

The FCM also believed that termination is in the children’s best interests 

because of Father’s drug use and history of unstable housing. At the time of the 

termination hearing, the FCM believed that Father was barely able to take care 

of himself, much less three young children. By the time of the second day of 

the hearing in June 2017, he had not even seen his children for nearly a year—

since July 2016, when the visits stopped at his request.

[51] We have no doubt that Father loves his children, and the record supports his 

argument that they are bonded to him. But the record likewise supports a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1710-JT-2391 | March 15, 2018 Page 20 of 20

conclusion that he is unable to provide a stable, appropriate, drug-free home for 

his children or to meet their other needs. Under these circumstances, we find 

that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination of the 

parent-child relationship between Father and his children is in the children’s 

best interests.2

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

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

2

Father takes issue with many of the trial court’s findings of fact. Each of these findings, however, has 

evidence supporting it. Father directs our attention to other evidence undercutting these findings, but this is 

merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do.