Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 1 of 8

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 S.D.

Kristin R. Willadsen

Public Defender’s Office

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT W.P., SR.

Ana M. Quirk

Public Defender

Quirk & Hunter, PC

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

David Dickmeyer

Graduate Law Clerk

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of W.P., Jr., Minor Child, and 

W.P., Sr., Father and S.D., 

Mother:

S.D. and W.P.

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 8, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A02-1406-JT-422

Appeal from the 

Delaware Circuit Court

The Honorable Kimberly S.

Dowling, Judge, and 

The Honorable Brian M. Pierce, 

Magistrate

Cause No. 18C02-1301-JT-1
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] W.P., Sr. (“Father”) and S.D. (“Mother”) each appeal the juvenile court’s order 

terminating their parent-child relationship with W.P., Jr. (“Child”) and raise

the following consolidated and restated issue: whether sufficient evidence was 

presented to support the termination of their parental rights.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In July 2011, police responded to a domestic violence call at parents’ residence. 

When police arrived, Father emerged from the residence holding Child (then 

three months old) by the back of the neck, using him as a shield. Father 

threatened to shoot police and would not release Child. Ultimately, Child had 

to be pried from Father’s hands. Both parents were intoxicated, and Father was 

arrested. A medical examination revealed Child had four fractured ribs. The 

Child’s ribs were in two different stages of healing indicating two separate 

injuries. DCS removed Child from the home and filed a Child in Need of 

Services (“CHINS”) petition. 

[4] Mother admitted to the allegations in the CHINS petition, and Child was 

adjudicated a CHINS. On August 6, 2011, Mother began seeing an addictions

counselor. On September 22, 2011, the trial court issued its dispositional order. 

The court suspended Father’s visitation rights and ordered reunification services 

and requirements for both parents, including that they keep all appointments, 

secure and maintain stable and legal income, refrain from illegal controlled 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 3 of 8

substances and alcohol, submit to random drug and alcohol screens, participate 

in a treatment group (such as Alcoholics Anonymous), and begin counseling. 

In October 2011, DCS filed a modification report and requested a no-contact 

order between Mother and Father, which was granted the following week. 

[5] Mother began meeting with her addictions counselor but failed her drug 

screening on two separate occasions. She also began an intensive outpatient 

program (“IOP”), but left the program due to an inability to pay. Mother then 

began a second IOP, this time paid for by DCS. During this IOP, Mother failed 

a third drug screen. 

[6] Several months later, Mother resumed her work with the addictions counselor, 

but the addictions counselor terminated his services due to Mother’s 

dishonesty. Between the filing of the CHINS petition and the order terminating 

her parent-child relationship, Mother tested positive for cocaine twenty times

and Mother failed to find employment. 

[7] Meanwhile, Father pleaded guilty to domestic battery and resisting law 

enforcement. He was released from incarceration in May, 2012. Following his 

release, Father was placed on and successfully completed probation. During 

this time, Father was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and Father began 

meeting with an addictions counselor, but missed a number of a scheduled

appointments and failed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous. Because of Father’s 

lack of progress, the counselor terminated the sessions with Father. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 4 of 8

[8] During this time, Father was also referred to a therapist, but missed a number

of his scheduled appointments. Pursuant to a DCS request, the trial court 

modified the CHINS dispositional order to allow Father to begin visitation with 

Child if he was able to comply with his requirements for at least thirty days, but 

Father never did comply for at least thirty days and was never allowed 

visitation. 

[9] In January 2013, DCS filed its termination petition. Following an evidentiary 

hearing, the juvenile court issued an order terminating both parents’ parentchild relationship with Child. The court found as follows:

6. Neither [Mother] nor [Father] have demonstrated any substantive 

progress in reunification services and have demonstrated a pattern of 

resisting reunification efforts.

7. [Mother] has continually tested positive for cocaine throughout the 

course of the . . . case . . . and has tested positive for cocaine while this 

termination case has been pending. 

8. DCS arranged for [Mother] to receive in-patient drug treatment and 

she refused that treatment option. [Mother] stated that she did not 

attend in-patient drug treatment because she was fearful of losing her 

apartment (she receives assistance from the township Trustee for 

housing). However, [Mother] was sanction[ed] by the township 

Trustee and did not receive housing assistance for a period of three 

months. She was able to demonstrate a resourcefulness to keep her 

apartment during this three month sanction period. 

9. [Mother] does not want to live a drug free lifestyle. [Mother’s] 

continued positive drug screens (even while the termination case has 

been pending), her dishonesty with her substance abuse counselor[,] 

and her refusal to attend an in-patient drug treatment program all lead 

this court to conclude that [Mother] is not serious about addressing her 

drug use.

10. [Mother] participated in counseling, but demonstrated a pattern of 

dishonesty and a refusal to take any personal responsibility for her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 5 of 8

situation. [Mother] was unable to make any progress [toward] 

addressing the pattern of domestically abusive relationships and poor 

personal choices concerning drug usage and employment. 

11. [Mother] has no identifiable, legal source of income and has failed 

to obtain either employment or a stable source of income throughout 

these proceedings

12. [T]his court suspended [Father’s] visitation on August 1, 2011 

because of the child’s injuries during the altercation which led to the 

child’s removal. [Father] has demonstrated so little effort [toward] 

engaging in reunification services that this court has maintained a 

suspension of visitation throughout this case.

13. While [Father] did re-engage in counseling in 2014 and completed 

four sessions, prior to that he missed over 50 percent of his scheduled 

counseling sessions. 

14. [Father] has demonstrated no desire to address his alcohol usage, 

which was a direct and contributing factor to the incident which 

resulted in the child’s removal. A commitment to sobriety is one of 

the recommendations contained in [Father’s] psychological 

evaluation. 

15. [Father] has failed to engage in either case management services 

or to complete his substance abuse treatment. 

16. [Father] has no identifiable, legal source of income and has failed 

to obtain either employment or a stable, legal source of income 

throughout these proceedings. . . .

. . . . 

17. [Child’s Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”)] agrees that 

it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of 

[Mother] and [Father]. The CASA indicated that [Mother] has 

demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty throughout this case[,] and that 

[Father] takes no responsibility for his actions which resulted in 

[Child’s] injuries and removal. 

19. [B]ased on the foregoing, there is a reasonable probability that the 

conditions that resulted in the child’s removal will not be remedied.

20. [B]ased on the foregoing, there is a reasonable probability that the 

continuation of the parent/child relationship herein poses a threat to 

the well-being of the child. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 6 of 8

21. Termination of the parent/child relationship is in the best interest 

of the child. . . .

. . . . 

[10] Both Mother and Father now appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[11] In reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses; we consider only the evidence 

and reasonable inferences therefrom that are most favorable to the judgment. 

In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

[12] At the termination hearing, Mother admitted that she continued to use drugs,

failed to participate fully in treatment, and failed to locate and maintain stable 

income. Tr. at 103, 107, and 108. Mother’s addictions counselor testified that 

Mother had failed numerous drug tests during the course of treatment and 

missed several appointments. Tr. at 37-39. 

[13] Mother argues that, in making its judgment, the juvenile court failed to give any 

weight to certain positive evidence, including her continued visitation, regular 

search for extra employment, and her stable residence. Mother’s Br. at 18. This 

argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh evidence, which we 

may not do. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265. 

[14] Father’s addictions counselor testified that Father only attended six 

appointments out of twelve that were scheduled; that Father refused to attend 

Alcoholics Anonymous; that Father made only “minimal” progress on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 7 of 8

addressing his alcohol dependence; and that during the course of treatment, the 

number of problems in Father’s life caused by alcohol actually increased. Tr. at 

21, 22. Father’s therapist testified that Father only showed up for eight of 

eighteen scheduled appointments; that of the eight sessions he attended, he 

never stayed the full time, often leaving after just twenty to twenty-five minutes; 

and that when she was able to speak with Father, he would deny that he needed 

any help and refused to actually engage in the treatment process. Tr. at 21, 22, 

29, 30.

[15] Similar to Mother, Father argues that the juvenile court failed to consider 

certain factors when it reached its decision to terminate his relationship with 

Child. He points out that he completed a substance abuse program while 

incarcerated for the events that led to Child’s removal, that his incarceration 

prevented him from participating in the underlying CHINS proceeding, that it 

is unclear that Father was even aware of the CHINS proceeding, that he 

successfully completed probation, which demonstrated an attempt to establish a 

stable and appropriate life after his release from incarceration, and that he was 

not afforded visitation opportunities during the proceeding. Father’s Br. at 21. 

Father’s argument, like Mother’s, is a request to reweigh the evidence, which 

we may not do. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265.

[16] The juvenile court’s termination decision was supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.

[17] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1406-JT-422 | April 8, 2015 Page 8 of 8

Friedlander, J., and Crone, J., concur.