Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 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 APPELLANTS

Mark Small

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Termination of the 

Parent-Child Relationship of 

A.R. and Ma.R. (Minor 

Children), and 

M.R. (Father) and J.R. (Mother),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

August 28, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-288

Appeal from the Clinton Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

12C01-1706-JT-175

12C01-1706-JT-176

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 2 of 20

[1] M.R. (“Father”) and J.R. (“Mother”) (collectively “the Parents”) appeal the 

Clinton Circuit Court’s involuntary termination of their parental rights to their 

children, A.R. (“Son”) and Ma.R. (“Daughter”) (collectively the “Children”). 

The Parents argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s 

judgment terminating their parental rights.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Daughter was born to the Parents on May 23, 2010, and Son was born on 

December 2, 2014. Father and Mother were both special education students 

who did not complete high school. Father is unemployed but receives Social 

Security Income Disability. Mother has never been employed. 

[4] On or about October 27, 2015, the Indiana Department of Child Services 

(“DCS”) were notified that the Children had “little bites all over their bodies, 

necks, arms, and legs.” Appellee’s App. p. 4. Indiana pest control inspected the 

home and stated that the “place was riddled with bedbugs.” Id. DCS was also 

notified that the house was filled with stacks of trash, that there was a horrible 

smell coming from the house, and that the home was allegedly uninhabitable 

for small children. The Parents were reportedly instructed by building 

management to clean the home. Id. 

[5] The Family Case Manager (“FCM”) assigned to the case conducted 

unannounced visits to the home. During the first visit, on November 3, 2015, 

the FCM found the home littered with debris, the living room did not have a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 3 of 20

clear walkway, the Children’s beds did not have bedding, Son’s crib was not 

fully assembled, and there was a foul odor in the home. On November 6, 2015, 

the conditions in the home had improved, but the FCM still witnessed areas of 

clutter in the house. During a third visit on November 25, the FCM observed 

that the conditions of the home had declined, and she noticed an overwhelming 

odor. She also observed that there was old food laying out in the kitchen, 

garbage on the stove top, and several items laying throughout the home. On 

December 1, the Parents were aware that the FCM would be coming back, and 

the conditions had slightly improved, but the odor was still present in the home. 

On December 4 the FCM found that the conditions had declined again. She 

also reported that she heard Mother screaming at Daughter as she approached 

the front door. 

[6] The Parents told the FCM during her visits that the conditions of the home 

were created by the exterminator coming to the home to treat for bedbugs and 

stated that the home was usually not in the condition that the FCM had 

observed. The FCM also visited Daughter at school and observed that she had 

marks on her arms, legs, and torso. Daughter reported that the marks were from 

bug bites.

[7] On December 8, 2015, DCS filed a petition alleging that the Children where 

children in need of services (“CHINS”). An initial hearing was held the same 

day, and a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) was appointed. The court reviewed 

the material allegations against the Parents, and found:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 4 of 20

• [T]hat the condition of [the] home is not being maintained [] and it poses a 

danger to [the Children].

• [T]hat the home did have bed bugs and [Daughter] was bitten.

• [T]hat the coercive intervention of the court is needed to help [] maintain the 

condition of [the] home.

• [T]hat [the Children are] child[ren] in need of service.

Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 1, pp. 6–9. 

[8] The court further found that:

The [Children] ha[ve] not been removed and currently reside[] in 

the home of [the Parents].

The Court finds that reasonable efforts were made 

by DCS to prevent or eliminate the need for removal 

of the [Children] The statements of reasonable 

efforts as set forth in the pleadings, reports, and 

documents of DCS and/or all other service providers 

filed herein are incorporated by reference.

The Court finds responsibility for the placement and 

care of the [Children] is ordered or continues to be 

ordered to the DCS.

Id. (emphasis in original). The Children were adjudicated CHINS on December 

8, 2015.

[9] At the January 11, 2016 dispositional hearing, the court ordered the Parents to, 

among other things, do the following:

f. [The Parents] will enroll in any program(s) or assessments as 

recommended by the Family Case Manager [(“FCM”)] or other 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 5 of 20

service provider within thirty days and participate in the program 

as directed without delay or missed appointments.

***

j. [The Parents] will maintain suitable, safe and stable housing 

with adequate bedding, functional utilities, adequate supplies of 

food and food preparation facilities.

***

l. [The Parents] will secure and maintain a legal and stable source 

of income, which may include employment, public assistance, 

Social Security and/or child support payments that are adequate 

to support all the household members, including [the Children].

m. [The Parents] will assist in the formulation and put in place a 

protection plan which protects [the Children] from abuse or 

neglect from any person.

n. [The Parents] will see that the [Children are] properly clothed, 

fed and supervised. If [the Children are] of school age, [the 

Parents] will see that [the Children are] properly enrolled/

registered and attending school or provide verification that the 

child is participating in an approved educational program. [The 

Parents] will fully cooperate with the [Children’s] school 

regarding any issues concerning [the Children].

***

s. [The Parents] will ensure that [the Children] become[] engaged 

in a home-based counseling program referred by the [FCM]. All 

members of the family are to actively participate to the extent 

recommended by the provider and DCS. The family will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 6 of 20

demonstrate positive changes in their lives as a result of the 

counseling.

t. [The Parents] will complete a parenting assessment and 

successfully complete all recommendations developed as a result 

thereof.

u. [The Parents] will complete a psychological evaluation as 

referred and approved by DCS and successfully complete any 

recommendations as a result thereof.

***

x. [The Parents] will not allow the use of physical discipline on 

[the Children] and will demonstrate the ability to appropriately 

parent [the Children] using alternate means of discipline.

y. [The Parents] will see that any person(s) responsible for 

physical care or custody of the [Children] is first approved by the 

[FCM]. These persons must abide by all the terms of this 

[CHINS] matter, provide age appropriate supervision and care at 

all times, including, but not limited to providing all medical care 

prescribed by medical personnel.

z. [The Parents] will provide the [C]hildren with a safe, secure 

and nurturing environment that is free from abuse and neglect 

and be an effective caregiver who possesses the necessary skills, 

knowledge and abilities to provide the [C]hildren with this type 

of environment on a long-term basis to provide the [Children] 

with permanency.

Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 1, pp. 11–20.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 7 of 20

[10] On March 4, 2016, DCS filed a petition to remove the Children from Parents’

home and place them in the care of their paternal grandmother, T.R. 

(“Grandmother”). A hearing was held on March 8, 2016, and the court found 

the following:

2. The following facts and circumstances have occurred since 

the [January 11] dispositional decree was entered:

• DCS received reports from the home[-]based care workers, 

Tim Adams (“Adams”) and Melissa Ruffino (“Ruffino”), on 

January 21 and 22, 2016, and February 10, 2016, that the 

conditions of the home have declined to the extent that the

home is unsafe for the [Children]. 

• DCS also has received reports that [Son] had injuries that were 

not reported to DCS and bug bites that were not being treated.

• DCS has received reports that [Daughter] has been having 

behavior problems at home and school that the [P]arents are 

unable to manage.

3. The dispositional decree is modified as follows:

• VISITATION: [The Parents] will attend all visitations with 

the [Children] and comply with all visitation rules and 

procedures set forth by DCS or the service provider 

coordinating and/or supervising the visits.

The Court finds this modification to be the least restrictive and 

most family like setting and it is in the [Children’s] best 

interest[s].

Id. at 21–26.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 8 of 20

[11] Over the course of the next year, DCS submitted periodic progress reports 

concerning their observations and evaluations of visitations between the Parents 

and Children to the court. The FCM reported, in relevant part, that:

DCS has concerns about [the Parents’] ability to parent children. 

There were several incidents where service providers were in the 

home and observed [Son] chewing on a plugged[-]in vacuum 

cord with an exposed wire, eating old food, sitting in a soiled 

diaper that appeared as if hasn’t been changed for hours and 

[Son] putting pencils into his mouth. On numerous occasions 

[P]arents had to be told what they are allowing [the Children] to 

do was unsafe and many times [the Parents] did nothing to stop 

it.

There were injuries that [Son] received that [the Parents] couldn’t 

explain and recurring bites on different areas of [Son’s] body. 

[Daughter], who is a kindergartner, had displayed some serious 

behavior issues at school. [Daughter] has been suspended four 

times within a month’s time. She has torn up the classroom, hit 

and kicked other students, the teacher, and the assistant 

principal. On one occasion she took her clothes off in front of the 

class.

***

Since March 04, 2016[,] FCM has observed [the Parents] making 

some improvements in maintaining home conditions and 

parenting/engaging skills. However, DCS still has serious 

concerns about the lack of supervision. Home base[d] providers 

have reported on numerous occasion[s] that [the Parents] were 

not paying attention during visits. There were incidents where 

[Son] was about to run in the road, down a flight of stairs, was 

running around a parking lot unattended and the service provider 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 9 of 20

had to catch him. During a supervised visit at the park on 

September 13, 2016[,] [Son] ran into the road and cars actually 

had to stop to keep from hitting him. On September 20, 2016[, 

Mother] attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on pills. 

FCM spoke with [Mother] who stated that the reason she tried to 

commit suicide was because she was tired of DCS and wanted 

the pain to go away. Throughout the life of this case [P]arents 

have not displayed that they are capable of keeping the 

[C]hildren safe. Visits were suspended due to the lack of 

supervision and DCS not knowing what state of mind [Mother] 

is in.

Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 3, p. 37. 

[12] The FCM reports also noted that daughter had been diagnosed with Attention 

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Oppositional 

Defiant Disorder, and Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder. 

Id. at 21, 29, 38, 47, 57, 72, 88. Daughter had behavioral issues at school which 

included pinching other children’s bottoms, pushing and shoving other 

children, covering a child’s mouth and nose with her hands, not following 

directions, apparent disinterest in learning, failing to complete classroom 

assignments, destroying the classroom, playing in her own feces, spitting out 

gum and candy and throwing it at the teacher, flipping her desk over, chasing 

and poking a student with a pencil, and throwing a pencil at the teacher. Id. at 

88–89. 

[13] The Parents underwent psychological evaluations performed by a licensed 

clinical psychologist (“LCP”). With regard to Mother, the LCP concluded in 

relevant part the following:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 10 of 20

[Mother’s] tested intelligence is below average to well below 

average. Her academic skills are generally in keeping with her 

tested intelligence. . . . [Mother] experiences difficulties with 

attention, concentration, memory, planning, and organization; 

however, she may lack self-awareness as to the nature and 

severity of these deficits. Also, [Mother’s] reported history is 

remarkable for childhood trauma, family instability, and 

recurrent episodes of depression with self-injurious behavior, 

suicidal ideation, and at least one suicide attempt in September 

2016.

In regard to parenting, these findings raise potential concerns 

about [Mother’s] judgment, decision making, problem solving, 

planning, organization, and ability to stay on task. In addition, 

her reported history of depression and her personality style 

(based on test results) raise potential concerns about her 

emotional stability as a parent.

With respect to treatment, it is recommended that [Mother] 

continue with current mental health and case management 

services. The findings from this evaluation suggest that progress 

is likely to be slow and will occur in incrementally small steps 

with little generalization from one situation to another. Providers 

will need to intervene in a very concrete and behavior specific 

manner. Frequent rehearsal and repetition will be necessary for 

new learning to take place. Even with services, it is quite possible 

that [Mother] will require ongoing support and guidance in 

meeting the needs of [the Children].

Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 4, p. 7. 

[14] With regards to Father, the LCP concluded in relevant part that:

[Father’s] tested intelligence is significantly below average. His 

academic skills are somewhat higher than expected, perhaps 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 11 of 20

owing to twelve years of formal education. Even so, [ . . . ] there 

are also indications of pervasive deficits in executive functioning 

with respect to attention, concentration, memory, planning, and 

organization. In addition, the findings from the current 

evaluation suggest that [Father] is chronically depressed and 

anxious with prominent dependent personality features.

Taken as a whole, these findings raise concerns about [Father’s] 

ability to function capably as a parent without ongoing support. 

Cognitively, [Father’s] parenting is likely to be compromised in 

areas of judgment, decision making, problem solving, planning, 

organization, and ability to stay on task. His chronic depression 

and dependent personality features also raise concerns about 

[Father’s] willingness and ability to meet the demands and 

responsibilities associated with parenting two small children.

[Father’s] cognitive deficits are such that new learning will be 

slow, arduous, and limited in scope. Providers will need to 

intervene in a very concrete and behavior specific manner. 

Frequent rehearsal and repetition will be necessary for new 

learning to take place, and there will probably be little 

generalization across situations. [Father’s] depression and 

dependent personality features may also be potential obstacles to 

new learning as they directly impact motivation, persistence, and 

willingness to take on new responsibilities.

It is recommended that [Father] continue with current mental 

health and case management services. It could be of benefit to 

increase the frequency of [Father’s] therapy sessions to weekly so 

as to provide additional support. However, progress is likely to be 

slow and limited in scope for the aforementioned reasons. As 

[Father] noted during his interview, “I think I’m getting good 

help, but the things they try to teach me don’t sink in.” 

Therefore, it is quite possible that [Father] is going to require 

ongoing support, guidance, and assistance in meeting the needs 

of [the Children]. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 12 of 20

Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 5, pp. 7–8.

[15] Due to the Parents’ failure to demonstrate the ability to develop the skills 

necessary to properly parent the Children, DCS filed a petition to terminate the 

parent-child relationship between the Parents and the Children. After the factfinding hearings on August 30, 2017 and November 21, 2017, the court found 

in pertinent part that: 

5. That there is a reasonable probability that continuation of 

the parent-child relationship will pose a threat to the wellbeing of [the Children]. As noted above and by all 

involved in the case, [the Parents’] cognitive limitations 

prevent them from adequately supervising the [C]hildren 

and ensuring the [C]hildren’s safety. As such, continuing 

the parent-child relationship will pose a threat to the 

[Children’s] well-being. Any further delay in providing the 

[Children] permanency will pose a threat to the 

[Children’s] well-being. The need for permanency is 

certainly a factor in determining whether termination is in 

the [Children’s] best interest[s]. Finally, the GAL testified 

that the [C]hildren were bonded to [Grandmother] and 

adoption was in [the Children’s] best interests.

6. That is in the [Children’s] best interests that the parentchild relationship be terminated. The FCM, [] and the 

GAL [], testified that termination of the [Parents’] parental 

rights was in the [Children’s] best interests. []

7. That there is a satisfactory permanency plan for [the 

Children], i.e. adoption[.] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 13 of 20

Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 23–24 (internal citations omitted). Therefore, on 

December 27, 2017, the court issued its order terminating Mother’s and 

Father’s parental rights. The Parents now appeal.

Standard of Review

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

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. 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 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. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

[17] Here, the trial court entered specific factual findings and conclusion when it 

terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. When a trial court’s judgment 

contains specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered 

standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office 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. L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 14 of 20

[18] “The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

Matter of 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. 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. 

[19] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur in Indiana, the 

State is required to allege and prove, among other things:

(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.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been 

adjudicated a [CHINS];
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 15 of 20

(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.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). 

[20] “The State’s burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of 

‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260–61 

(Ind.2009) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-14-2). If the trial court finds that the 

allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court 

shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).

[21] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) requires a trial court to find that only 

one of the three elements of subsection (b)(2)(B) has been established by clear 

and convincing evidence before properly terminating parental rights. See L.S., 

717 N.E.2d at 209. Because we find it to be dispositive, we will limit our review 

to Parents’ allegations of error pertaining to subsections (b)(2)(B)(ii), namely, 

whether DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of 

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

I. Threat to Children’s Well-Being

[22] Termination of parental rights is proper where the Children’s emotional and 

physical development is threatened. In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2001), trans. denied. The court need not wait until the Children are harmed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 16 of 20

irreversibly such that their physical, mental, and social development is 

permanently impaired. Id. 

[23] A trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the time 

of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of changed 

conditions. In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. 

The trial court must “evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to 

determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” Id. 

Pursuant to this rule, courts have properly considered evidence of a parent’s 

history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of adequate housing and 

employment. A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 N.E.2d 1244, 

1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[24] Here, Parents argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a 

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

well-being. Although the Parents have complied with the trial court’s order to 

participate in services, attended visitations, and have a desire to care for the 

Children, the record substantially demonstrates that Parents lack the ability to 

adequately parent the Children. Specifically, DCS continuously reported that 

“parents had some serious safety, engagement and lack of supervision 

concerns.” Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 3, p. 55. 

[25] During supervised visits Father had little interaction with the Children. For 

example, while Children were visiting Parents, Father was observed to be 

sitting looking at DVD’s by himself for approximately 20 minutes at a time. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 17 of 20

On May 25, 2016, the visit supervisor had to inform Father that Son was 

climbing on a table and “running out of the play area towards a flight of stairs 

in the library.” Id. Father was not aware that Son had run away until the visit 

supervisor informed him. On May 26, 2016, Son was running in the parking lot 

of an Aldi, and Parents failed to respond appropriately. On the same day, Son 

picked up an empty can that was sitting on the ground at a park and attempted 

to drink from it. Parents were talking with each other, failed to stop Son from 

trying to drink from the can, and the visit supervisor had to intervene.

[26] Moreover, the FCM reported that the Parents do not “understand the majority 

of the information provided to them during Parent Management Training and 

have yet to incorporate anything provided during the case management into 

their parenting time.” Id. at 56. Throughout November 2016, Father 

continually showed a lack of involvement with the Children and made 

comments about “not wanting the [C]hildren back and being okay with not 

seeing them all the time.” Id. 

[27] Mother provides the majority of education and interaction, but still continues to 

struggle with providing appropriate discipline or re-direction. Id. at 56–57. On 

November 9, 2016, Mother tried to get Daughter to use the restroom, but 

Daughter refused to move, and Mother began yelling at her and pulled 

forcefully on her arm on three occasions. Id. at 57. 

[28] Daughter developed substantial behavior issues while in the care of the Parents. 

For example, at school Daughter removed all of her clothing in the classroom, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 18 of 20

pinched other children’s bottoms, pushed and shoved other children at school, 

did not follow the directions of her teachers, failed to complete classroom 

assignments, and does not show interest in learning. Ex. Vol. I., State’s Ex. 3, 

p. 85. Parents failed to appropriately discipline Daughter to correct these 

behavioral issues, and the behavioral issues did not subside until Daughter was 

placed in Grandmother’s care. It is unlikely this behavior will improve if 

Children are returned to Parents because even with services, Parents will have 

difficulty in supporting and meeting the needs of the Children. Ex. Vol. I, 

State’s Ex. 4, p. 7; State’s Ex. 5, p. 8.

[29] Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient 

to support the trial court’s finding that continuation of the parent-child 

relationship poses a threat to the Children’s well-being.1 Parents’ arguments are 

simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

II. Best Interests of the Children 

[30] The Parents argue that the trial court erred when it concluded that termination 

was in the Children’s best interests. “A parent’s historical inability to provide 

adequate housing, stability and supervision coupled with a current inability to 

 

1

In their reply brief, Parents assert that the trial court’s acknowledgment of the Parents’ cognitive deficits is 

equivalent to Indiana’s prior eugenics law. Reply Br. at 4. We strongly disagree. Eugenics involves 

involuntary sterilization of an individual. The instant case involves parents who have already conceived and 

failed to provide for their children. A court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his or her child at the time 

of the termination hearing, taking into consideration the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine 

the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 266. After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that DCS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s decision to 

terminate parental rights, beyond the Parents’ mental deficits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 19 of 20

provide the same will support a finding that termination of the parent-child 

relationship is in the child’s best interests.” Castro v. State Office of Family & 

Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. “Additionally, 

a child’s need for permanency is an important consideration in determining the 

best interests of a child, and the testimony of the service providers may support 

a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.” In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 

212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

[31] Here, Parents have demonstrated that even after completing and complying 

with court ordered reunification services, they are still unable to develop the 

skills necessary to adequately care for the Children. Furthermore, multiple 

service providers testified that termination is in the Children’s best interests. 

The Children’s GAL testified, “[i]t’s my opinion that [it is] in the best interest[s] 

of the [] [C]hildren that [] the parental rights do need to be [] terminated so that 

[] the [C]hildren can be adopted by [] paternal grand[mother].” Tr. p. 94. The 

FCM testified that he agreed that termination of parental rights is in the best 

interests of the Children at this time. Id. at 109. Moreover, the Children are 

well-adjusted with Grandmother, Daughter’s behavioral issues have subsided 

since she has lived with Grandmother, and the permanency plan provides that 

Grandmother will adopt the Children. Therefore, based on the totality of the 

evidence, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial 

court’s determination that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights 

is in the Children’s best interests.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-288 | August 28, 2018 Page 20 of 20

Conclusion

[32] For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it 

terminated Mother’s and Father’s parent-child relationship with Daughter and 

Son. Accordingly, we affirm.

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.