Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 1 of 21

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 -

FATHER

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT -

MOTHER

Frederick A. Turner

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of J.J. (Minor Child);

D.J. (Father) and P.J. (Mother),

Appellants-Defendants,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 13, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

60A04-1704-JT-759

Appeal from the Owen Circuit

Court

The Honorable Kelsey B. Hanlon, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

60C02-1604-JT-134
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 2 of 21

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] D.J. (“Father”) and P.J. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”) appeal the trial 

court’s termination of their parental rights over their minor child J.J. (“Child”). 

Parents present a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State 

presented sufficient evidence to support the termination of their parental rights. 

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Father and Mother are married and have four children together, J.M.J. (born in 

1995), D.D.J. (born in 1997), D.N.J. (born in 1998), and Child (born April 10, 

2004). On November 20, 2014, someone contacted the Indiana Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”) to report that Father had physically abused D.N.J. after 

Father had consumed alcohol. Thereafter, DCS filed a petition alleging that 

Child was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). After Mother and Father 

failed to fully comply with services and after they demonstrated that they were 

unable to care for Child, DCS filed a petition to terminate their parental rights

over Child. 

[3] Following a hearing, the trial court granted the petition on April 5, 2017. In 

support of its order, the trial court entered the following findings and 

conclusions:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 3 of 21

b. There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

resulted in the Child’s removal or the reasons for placement 

outside the parent’s home will not be remedied, to wit:

i. The Parents have struggled for an extended period of time to 

meet the needs of the Child. [J.J.] has been under the 

supervision of a Juvenile Court for a substantial portion of the 

five (5) years preceding Trial.

ii. [J.J.] is medically fragile. [J.J.] suffers from spina bifida, 

epilepsy, and sleep apnea as well as several other related 

conditions. [J.J.] has a shunt in his brain. [J.J.] uses a wheel 

chair, requires regular catheterization, and cannot receive liquids 

orally. [J.J.] has [a] g-tube through which he receives liquids and 

medications. If [J.J.] ingests liquids or non-solid foods by mouth, 

he is likely to aspirate. This type of aspiration jeopardizes [J.J.]’s 

lung function. The Child’s lung function is further jeopardized 

by the Child’s abnormal spinal curvature.

iii. The Child’s spinal curvature will require surgery to prevent 

further lung function impairment.

iv. The Child has been treated by a number of physicians. Dr. 

Aline Hamati, a physician at Riley Hospital for Children, 

provides care for [J.J.]’s neurological issues. In addition to 

seeing Dr. Hamati, the Child needs to see his subspecialists on a 

regular basis.

v. [J.J.] has the most severe type of spina bifida and has a

myelomeningocele located on his L-1 vertebrae. Dr. Hamati 

should see [J.J.] every six months. In spite of this need for 

regular medical supervision, [J.J.] was not seen by Dr. Hamati 

during the following periods: from November of 2009 to 

February of 2011, from April 2011 to June of 2012, and from 

December 2012 to March of 2015. It should be noted that during 

some of the relevant time frames during which [J.J.]’s treatment 

with Dr. Hamati lapsed, a Juvenile Court would have been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 4 of 21

exercising jurisdiction over the Child.

vi. It is Dr. Hamati’s office policy that if appointments are 

missed, it is the responsibility of the patient’s parent to reschedule 

the appointment so that the Child receives proper medical 

supervision by Dr. Hamati.

vii. As of 2015, an EEG indicated that the Child is still at high 

risk for seizures. If his seizures go untreated the Child could 

suffer permanent brain damage.

viii. The Child requires catheterization five (5) to six (6) times per 

day. Failure to regularly catheterize the Child will result in 

kidney infections. If [J.J.] suffers frequent infections, he could 

develop resistance to antibiotics.

ix. While the Child’s medical conditions are extremely serious, 

the Child is likely to live well into adulthood if he receives 

appropriate care.

x. The Child has cognitive impairments that make it difficult for 

him to manage his own care. Substantial assistance from an 

adult caregiver is necessary to ensure the Child receives adequate 

care.

xi. The Child has been adjudicated a Child in Need of Services 

on three (3) separate occasions.

xii. The Child was first adjudicated a Child in Need of Services 

under Cause No. 28C01-1109-JC-032. The Family worked with 

[Family Case Manager (“FCM”)] Karen Roach of the Greene 

County DCS under this Cause.

xiii. During CHINS Cause No. 28C01-1109-JC-032, Respondent 

Parents admitted to domestic violence. Respondent Parents also 

admitted that alcohol consumption contributed to the altercation 

that resulted in the initiation of the CHINS matter. DCS worked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 5 of 21

with the family in addressing [J.J.]’s medical/hygiene needs 

during this CHINS matter. FCM Karen Roach worked with the 

family under this cause starting in late 2011 and continued 

through December of 2012.

xiv. During her initial work with the family, FCM Roach found 

the home to have conditions to be unsafe for [J.J.] with trash and 

debris on the floor. This was particularly problematic for [J.J.], 

as the trash and debris throughout the home impaired his 

mobility when using a wheelchair and made it unsafe for him to

crawl on the floor, which was an alternative method of mobility 

for [J.J.] at the time.

xv. During the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in Cause No. 

28C01-1109-JC-032, two Homebuilders referrals were provided. 

Homebuilders is an intensive in-home services program. The 

parents did not make substantial progress with the first referral 

and a second referral was required.

xvi. [J.J.] was removed from his Parents’ care in March of 2012 

and placed in a foster home. Kenneth Branaman was the Child’s 

foster father at this time and Mr. Branaman and his wife 

provided foster care for the Child until July of 2012. In October 

of 2012, the Child was returned to Mr. Branaman’s care for a 

matter of days and was subsequently returned to the Respondent 

Parents’ care.

xvii. During FCM Roach’s work with the family, the Family 

received a Habitat for Humanity home built with specifications 

to meet [J.J.]’s medical needs. Respondent Parents did not 

maintain payments on the home and the family was required to 

vacate the home.

xviii. Jurisdiction in Cause No. 28C01-1109-JC-032 was 

terminated in December of 2012.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 6 of 21

xix. The Child was adjudicated a Child in Need of Services for a 

second time under Cause No. 60C01-1311-JC-152. Under this 

Cause the Child was found to be a Child in Need of Services 

under I.C. [§] 31-34-1-1. The Court specifically found, inter alia, 

in its Fact-Finding Order entered on November 25, 2013, that:

“On or around November 6, 2013, [Father and 

Mother] were involved in a domestic violence 

incident that resulted in injuries to both parties. The 

children were present in the home during the fight. 

[Someone] attempted to intervene in the fight and 

was thrown down. Both parents admit there was a 

fight and they sustained injuries. Both parents admit 

they were drinking alcohol prior to the fight. Both 

parents admit there have been previous incidents of 

domestic violence.

FCM Charlotte Church interviewed [Mother] on 

November 6, 2013. [Mother] made statements 

indicating suicidal ideations, such as she doesn’t 

want to live any longer and she wants to die every 

day. [Mother] stated that she has been diagnosed 

with borderline personality disorder, depression, and 

anxiety, but she is not currently receiving services or 

medication because of a lapse in her insurance. 

[Mother] had attempted suicide earlier this year.”

xx. The Family worked with ongoing FCM Shea Finnegan under 

Cause No. 60C02-1311-JC-152.

xxi. During the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in Cause No. 

60C02-1311-JC-152, it was identified that [J.J.] would need to 

wear a CPAP machine at night due to his sleep apnea. 

Respondent Father was unable or unwilling to ensure that Child 

utilized the CPAP as directed, in spite of the fact that there were 

concerns that the sleep apnea was affecting the Child’s heart 

function.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 7 of 21

xxii. Jurisdiction was terminated in Cause No. 60C02-1311-JC152 on September 26, 2014.

xxiii. The Child was adjudicated a Child in Need of Services for 

a third time under Cause No. 60C01-1411-JC-255 (referred to 

hereinafter as “the underlying CHINS Cause”). The underlying 

CHINS Cause was initiated in Owen Circuit Court I and was 

subsequently transferred to Owen Circuit Court II by operation 

of local rule. It was then assigned Cause No. 60C02-1411-JC255.

xxiv. The Child was removed from the home in the underlying 

CHINS Cause under a Court Order entered on November 24, 

2014. 

xxv. In the underlying CHINS Cause, the Child was again placed 

in foster care with Mr. and Mrs. Branaman. At the time Child 

was placed in the Branaman’s care, no medication or medical 

equipment was provided by Respondent Parents.

xxvi. Because Mr. Branaman had previously provided foster care 

for [J.J.], he became concerned when no seizure medication was 

provided and took steps to ensure [J.J.] would receive his seizure 

medication. Respondent Parents did not contact the Branamans 

regarding [J.J.]’s medications or medical equipment during 

[J.J.]’s transition to the Branaman’s home.

xxvii. After being assigned to the matter, FCM Webb asked 

Respondent Father why [J.J.] was out of medication at the outset 

of the underlying CHINS Cause. When asked, Respondent 

Father blamed Respondent Mother. Respondent Father reported 

that Respondent Mother was receiving the appointment 

reminders and not communicating that information. Regardless 

of the reasons, Respondent Parents failed to ensure the Child 

continued to receive his medically necessary seizure medication.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 8 of 21

xxviii. In Cause Number 60C02-1411-JC-255, Respondent 

Parents admitted the Child was a Child in Need of Services 

under I.C. [§] 31-34-1-1 and the Court specifically found, inter 

alia, that: “Respondent Father physically assaulted [two of J.J.’s 

siblings] while intoxicated; Home conditions—no running 

water—are not appriate [sic] for the Children. Assault took place 

in front of [J.J.], who became scared and upset.”

xxix. On January 29, 2015, the Court entered its Dispositional 

Decree in Cause No. 60C02-1411-JC-255. The Order adopted 

the recommendations contained in the Predispositional Report as 

the Court’s Order and Ordered, inter alia, that:

“W. CHILD MEDICAL/MENTAL NEEDS: 

[Father and Mother] will meet all of the medical and 

mental health needs of the children in a timely and 

complete manner. This includes[,] but is not limited 

to, following all directions of nurses/doctors, 

attending all appointments scheduled[,] and giving all 

medications as prescribed for the above[-]named 

children in the prescribed doses at the prescribed 

times.

J. SUITABLE HOUSING: [Father and Mother] will 

maintain suitable, safe, stable housing with adequate 

bedding, functional utilities, adequate supplies of 

food[,] and food preparation facilities. [Father and 

Mother] will keep the family residence in a manner 

that [is] structurally sound, sanitary, clean, free from 

clutter[,] and safe for the Children.

A. [sic] CONTACT THE CASEMANAGER: 

[Father and Mother] will contact the Family Case 

Manager every week to allow the Family Case 

Manager to Monitor Compliance with the Child in 

Need of Services matter. The contact may be in 

person, by letter, e-mail or by telephone.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 9 of 21

xxx. The Court additionally Ordered [Mother], inter alia, to 

secure housing to accommodate herself, [N.J.] and [J.J.] within 

six (6) months.

xxxi. In August of 2015, the Child had an overnight visit with 

Respondent Father. During this visit, FCM Webb stopped in to 

see the Child. When asked by FCM Webb, Respondent Father 

did not appear to understand the dose meter on the Child’s 

albuterol inhaler. Respondent Father also planned to give the 

Child Rectal Diastat, which he showed to FCM Webb. The 

Rectal Diastat had expired in 2011.

xxxii. During the fall of 2015, the Child had multiple urinary 

tract infections and there were concerns that Respondent Father 

did not have an adequate understanding regarding how much 

water [J.J.] needed to have administered.

xxxiii. In November of 2015, the Child had dental surgery due to 

substantial tooth decay. Respondent Parents were not present for 

the surgery and did not visit the Child in the hospital.

xxxiv. In December of 2015, Respondent Parents attended a 

medical appointment regarding [J.J.]’s use of the CPAP 

machine. During this appointment, when [J.J.] became upset 

about using the equipment, [Father] held the Child like an infant 

and told him that he did not have to wear the CPAP machine.

xxxv. On numerous occasions during supervised visits in the 

underlying CHINS Cause, the Child’s medical needs were not 

met by Respondent Parents.

xxxvi. After a visit with Respondent Mother the Child’s G-Tube 

became dislodged. The dislodged G-Tube was discovered by the 

Child’s Placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 10 of 21

xxxvii. During a visit with Respondent Mother, the Child was 

allowed by Mother to ingest cake batter in spite of his medical 

restrictions and aspiration concerns.

xxviii. On numerous occasions during her visits, Respondent 

Mother failed to provide the Child with water pursuant to his 

medical schedule.

xxxix. On numerous occasions after visiting with Respondent 

Parents, [J.J.]’s g-tube site was extremely dirty, evidencing both 

Parents’ inability to monitor the Child’s ongoing medical and 

hygiene needs, even for short periods.

xl. During a visit with Respondent Mother, visit supervisor 

Dorothy Oliver observed Respondent Mother smoking in the 

house. Ms. Oliver also observed the Child fall off the couch 

during a visit with Mother. The Child was observed to lie on the

floor for several minute[s] before Mother’s roommate lifted him 

back on to the couch. Mother has numerous pets in the home. 

Respondent Mother’s home smells like cat urine and the odor 

has persisted after she attempted to clean her carpet with a rug 

doctor. Cat feces have also been observed in the home. Under 

the circumstances, the Child being allowed to lie on the floor 

after falling off of the couch reaffirms concerns that his health 

and hygiene are not treated with the urgency necessary to ensure 

his wellbeing.

xli. During a visit in September of 2016, Respondent Mother left 

necessary medical equipment at home, including a g-tube 

extension and feeding syringe.

xlii. During the underlying CHINS cause, Respondent Father 

was not able to supply the Child with CPAP equipment due to 

owing the medical equipment supplier monies and not making 

any alternative arrangements. As of the Fact-Finding Hearing in 

the above-captioned cause, there is no indication this situation 

has been remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 11 of 21

xliii. After the concerns regarding [J.J.] having infections were 

identified in the fall of 2015, issues regarding the same persisted. 

The Child would return from visits with Respondent Parents 

suffering from urinary tract infections. The same was noted in 

the Court’s order entered on May 12, 2016.

xliv. The CASA made limited observations [of] the Child at the 

homes of each Respondent Parent. CASA Volunteer Patricia 

Hill expressed concerns regarding the cleanliness of both homes 

and that each parent treats [J.J.] in an age/developmentally 

inappropriate manner. The CASA also expressed concerns that 

each Respondent Parent fails to understand the urgency of the 

Child’s medical needs.

xlv. Respondent Mother does not have reliable personal 

transportation available.

xlvi. In the summer of 2016, Respondent Father’s home-based 

visitations were discontinued due [to] concerns of the visit 

supervisor regarding a possible bed bug infestation. Respondent 

Father was allowed to continue community-based supervised 

visits for a time. Eventually community-based visits were put on 

hold in November of 2016 due to inconsistent participation by 

Respondent Father. It was not until December 2, 2016, that 

Respondent Father provided confirmation from an extermination 

service . . . indicating that there [were] no signs of live bugs or 

current bed bug activity.

xlvii. Respondent Father blamed the Child’s older siblings for the 

most recent CHINS matter being opened. Respondent Father 

has failed to maintain contact with FCM Webb.

xlviii. Since being removed from Respondent Parents’ care, [J.J.] 

has gotten in full compliance with his CPAP regimen. In the 

care of Respondent Parents, he was not fully compliant. 

Respondent Parents failed to notify DCS at the outset of the 

underlying CHINS Cause that the Child needed to utilize a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 12 of 21

CPAP machine and the Child was not provided with the 

machine at his first placement.

xlix. In the underlying CHINS Cause, DCS has provided services 

to Respondent Parents to assist them in understanding and 

meeting [J.J.]’s extensive medical needs. Respondent Parents 

were strongly encouraged to attend and participate in [J.J.]’s 

medical appointments to assist them in better understanding his 

ongoing medical needs.

l. The Child’s placement Emily Brown has been extremely 

diligent in attempting to assist Respondent Parents in 

understanding and meeting the Child’s medical needs.

li. Respondent Parents have a strained relationship with Ms. 

Brown and have failed to regularly communicate with her in 

spite of the fact that this communication would likely assist them 

in better understanding the Child’s current medical regimen.

lii. Respondent Parents were directed to maintain medical notes 

regarding [J.J.]’s care to assist them in staying up-to-date on the 

Child’s medical needs.

liii. On different occasions during the case, the Parents have been 

unable to answer questions regarding the Child’s medical 

regimen. At times, and despite substantial support from DCS 

and service providers, Respondent Parents have not . . . 

maintained the most up-to-date information regarding the Child’s 

care.

liv. At times during [J.J.]’s medical appointments, Respondent 

Parents have been unable to complete required paperwork, 

unable to list the Child’s medications, and have not always 

brought along resources (notebooks, medical binders, etc.) that 

would assist them in providing necessary information to [J.J.]’s 

providers.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 13 of 21

lv. During the underlying CHINS Cause, [J.J.] has had 

somewhere between fifty (50) and sixty (60) medical 

appointments. Respondent Parents each attended approximately 

eleven (11) of [J.J.]’s appointments.

lvi. In August of 2016, the Child had to have an emergency 

revision of the shunt in his brain. During his related hospital 

stay, neither Respondent Parent came to visit the Child.

lvii. At times, Respondent Father engaged [in] conversation with 

the Child during visits that caused the Child to become very 

distraught.

lviii. The Child has struggled with emotional outbursts, 

aggressive behaviors, and self-injurious behaviors for a 

substantial period of time. In September and October of 2016 the 

Child exhibited significant improvement in these areas. There 

was also significant improvement in the Child’s behaviors after 

Respondent Parents’ visits returned to fully supervised.

lix. Respondent Parents love and care about the Child, but 

Respondent Parents lack the ability to meet the Child’s day-today medical needs. Respondent Parents will be extremely 

unlikely to adequately address the Child’s additional needs after 

spinal surgery.

lx. After over two years of out-of-home placement, the Child has 

not been returned to the care of either Respondent Parent. At 

present, the Child’s safety cannot be ensured in the care of either 

Parent and the Child needs permanent, adequate care and 

supervision.

a. [sic] Termination of the Parent-Child relationship is in the best 

interest of the Child, to wit:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 14 of 21

i. Respondent Parents have been unable to provide 

for the Child’s care, without State intervention, for a 

substantial portion of the Child’s life.

ii. Respondent Parents have exhibited a longstanding 

pattern of inability to meet the Child’s needs for care 

and supervision.

iii. The Child’s older sibling, [N.J.], resides with the 

Child in his current placement. The Child has a very 

positive relationship with [N.J.] and his other adult 

siblings. This relationship is likely to be maintained 

and supported in the Child’s current placement.

iv. The Child needs and deserves permanency. The 

Child should not be required to continue to wait for 

permanency.

b. There is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the 

Child, which is:

Adoption by current placement Emily Brown. Ms. 

Brown has provided exceptional care for the Child 

for a substantial period of time and is prepared to 

continue to provide this level of care as an adoptive 

parent to the Child.

Base on the foregoing, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Parent-Child 

Relationship between [J.J.], the Child, and [Father 

and Mother] be terminated, and all rights, powers, 

privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations

pertaining to that relationship are hereby 

permanently terminated.

Appellants’ App. at 96-104. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 15 of 21

Discussion and Decision

[4] We begin our review of this appeal by acknowledging that “[t]he traditional 

right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is protected by the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Bailey v. Tippecanoe 

Div. of Family & Children (In re 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. Schultz v. Porter Cty. Off. of Fam. & Child. (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.

[5] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS 

is required to allege and prove:

(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 16 of 21

* * *

(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). DCS’s “burden of proof in termination of parental 

rights cases is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” R.Y. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child 

Servs. (In re G.Y.), 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-

14-2).

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

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cnty. Ofc. of 

Family & Children (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. 

Judy S. v. Noble Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

[7] Here, in terminating Parents’ parental rights, the trial court entered specific 

findings of fact and conclusions thereon. When a trial court’s judgment 

contains special findings and conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of 

review. Bester v. Lake Cnty. Ofc. of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 

2005). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 17 of 21

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. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.

[8] On appeal, Parents contend that the trial court erred when it concluded both 

that the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal and the reasons for his 

placement outside of Parents’ homes will not be remedied and that termination 

is in Child’s best interest. We address each contention in turn.1

Conditions that Resulted in Child’s Removal will not be Remedied

[9] In determining whether the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that 

Parents were unlikely to remedy the reasons for Child’s removal, we engage in 

a two-step analysis. E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re E.M.), 4 N.E.3d 636, 

643 (Ind. 2014). “First, we identify the conditions that led to removal; and 

second, we determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those 

conditions will not be remedied.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). In the 

second step, the trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for his children 

at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration evidence of 

changed conditions. Id. However, the court must also “evaluate the parent’s 

 

1

 The trial court did not conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parentchild relationships poses a threat to the well-being of the child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 18 of 21

habitual patterns of conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or 

deprivation of the child.” Moore v. Jasper Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 

218, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant to 

this rule, courts have properly considered evidence of a parent’s prior criminal 

history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, 

and lack of adequate housing and employment. Id. Moreover, DCS is not 

required to rule out all possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that 

there is a reasonable probability the parent’s behavior will not change. Id.

[10] Father does not challenge the trial court’s findings on this issue, and we cannot 

say that the trial court clearly erred when it concluded from those findings that 

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

removed from Parents’ care due to Parents’ substance abuse, inappropriate 

discipline, physical aggression against Child’s siblings, emotional neglect, and 

unhealthy living conditions. While Father has complied with substance abuse 

counseling and random testing and has shown success in that treatment, Father 

did not successfully complete health coaching, which was designed to educate 

Father on Child’s medical needs, including caring for Child’s feeding tube. 

Father has missed the majority of Child’s doctor’s appointments during the 

CHINS proceedings, and his visitation with Child has been inconsistent. 

Father’s last visit with Child was October 30, 2016.

[11] Mother “takes issue” with five of the trial court’s findings. Mother’s Br. at 11. 

In particular, Mother asserts that the challenged findings are “too general” or 

do not “tell the complete story” such that they do not support termination. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 19 of 21

at 11-12. However, Mother does not challenge the record on which those 

findings are based, and our review of the record supports the challenged 

findings. In all, Mother merely attempts to explain the circumstances 

surrounding: her failure to meet Child’s medical needs; the time she fed cake 

batter to Child; the three times Mother did not give Child water as directed; 

whether her house smelled of cat urine after she had cleaned the rug; and the 

“one occurrence” of cat feces observed outside of a litter box. Mother’s Br. at 

13.

[12] Parents’ arguments on appeal simply seek to have this court disregard the 

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment and instead reweigh the 

evidence in their favor. We will not do so. The evidence supports the trial 

court’s findings that neither Father nor Mother has demonstrated the ability to 

properly care for Child’s special medical needs. And Parents have not been 

diligent in participating in Child’s medical appointments. We cannot say that 

the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that the conditions that resulted 

in Child’s removal will not be remedied.

Best Interests

[13] In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a 

child, the trial court is required to look at the totality of the evidence. A.S. v. 

Ind. Dep’t. of Child Servs. (In re A.K.), 924 N.E.2d 212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

“A parent’s historical inability to provide adequate housing, stability and 

supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a 

finding that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the child’s best 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 20 of 21

interests.” Castro v. State Ofc. 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.” In re A.K., 

924 N.E.2d at 224.

[14] Parents do not challenge the trial court’s findings in support of this conclusion. 

Indeed, Mother concedes that the trial court “may have an argument that the 

Minor Child should not live with either parent[;] however, Father’s brief makes 

a good argument that he is capable of providing the care if he had assistance.” 

Mother’s Br. at 15. Mother then asserts, without any support in the record, that 

she “too believes that she could provide the Minor Child a home if she had 

assistance.” Id. Regardless, Parents’ contentions on this issue amount to 

nothing more than a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not 

do.

[15] DCS presented evidence that, since the fall of 2016, Parents have failed to 

attend the majority of Child’s medical appointments. Neither did Parents visit 

Child when he was hospitalized in August 2016. Parents have consistently 

demonstrated that they are not fully committed to providing the necessary care 

for Child, who has multiple and complex medical needs. Child needs

consistent and reliable care, and he needs permanency. The totality of the 

evidence, including Parents’ historical inability to provide a safe and stable 

home and their refusal to take advantage of the resources DCS provided them, 

supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination of Parents’ parental rights 

is in Child’s best interest.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 60A04-1704-JT-759 | November 13, 2017 Page 21 of 21

[16] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.