Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 1 of 13

APPELLANT, PRO SE

Roberta L. Renbarger

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

(MOTHER)

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re: the Termination of the 

Parent-Child Relationship of 

W.M.L. and A.J.L.

R.R. (Guardian ad Litem),

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

E.L. (Mother), O.H. (Father), et 

al.,

Appellees-Respondents.

August 31, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1703-JT-479

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

02D08-1603-JT-53

02D08-1603-JT-54

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 2 of 13

Statement of the Case

[1] Guardian Ad Litem, Roberta Renbarger, (“GAL Renbarger”) appeals the trial 

court’s denial of the Department of Children’s Services’ (“DCS”) petition to 

terminate the relationship between parents, E.L. (“Mother”) and O.H. 

(“Father”), and their children, W.L. (“W.L.”) and A.H. (“A.H.”) (collectively 

“the children”). Concluding that the trial court did not err in denying DCS’s 

petition to terminate the parent-child relationships, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in denying DCS’s petition to 

terminate the parent-child relationships.

Facts

[3] The evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that Mother and Father 

are the parents of son, W.L., who was born in October 2008, and daughter,

A.H., who was born in May 2012. Both children were removed from Mother 

and Father shortly after A.H.’s birth when it was discovered that Mother had 

used marijuana during her pregnancy and that the family was homeless. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 3 of 13

children were adjudicated to be Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”), and 

both parents were court-ordered to participate in services. 

[4] The children were returned to their parents’ home in July 2013. However, in 

September 2013, the police arrested Father for battering Mother. The children 

were removed from the home and placed in foster care. Father was convicted 

of domestic battery and placed on probation until September 2014. He was also 

restrained, under a no-contact order, from having any contact with Mother. 

Both parents were ordered to refrain from criminal activity, maintain clean and 

appropriate housing, and cooperate with all service providers. Mother and 

Father were also ordered to obtain diagnostic assessments, obtain drug and 

alcohol assessments, enroll in and successfully complete home-based services 

programs, refrain from the use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and attend all visits 

with the children. Mother was further ordered to obtain and maintain 

employment and to enroll in non-violence counseling at the Center for 

Nonviolence. Father was also ordered to attend and complete a specific 

program at the Center for Nonviolence. 

[5] In March 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental relationship 

between Mother and Father and their children, W.L. and A.H.1 The trial court 

held five days of hearings from August to November 2016. Testimony at the 

 

1 Mother and Father are also the parents of E.H., who was born in January 2016. At the time of the 

termination hearing, he had been adjudicated to be a CHINS but was not the subject of a termination 

petition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 4 of 13

hearings revealed that Father had completed a six-month batterer’s intervention 

program at the Center for Nonviolence in 2014 and had successfully completed 

the probation imposed following his domestic battery conviction. He had also 

completed a five-month substance abuse group program two weeks before the 

termination hearing. In addition, Father had worked for the same roofing 

company for several years. 

[6] The testimony further revealed that Mother had completed a five-month 

substance abuse program in 2013. She had also completed a program that had 

required her to complete applications for Social Security disability, food stamps, 

and Medicaid. At the time of the hearing, Mother was attending substance 

abuse counseling twice a week. She also had a full-time job with a lawn care 

service. Mother testified that although she still took prescribed methadone for 

pain for her physical ailments, including multiple sclerosis, hip dysplasia, 

rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis, she had not used illegal substances for 

the past year. According to Mother, she was “willing to do whatever it t[ook] 

to be better for [herself] so [she could] be better for [her] children.” (Tr. 114). 

[7] In addition, Mother and Father, who had been together for sixteen years, had 

recently gotten married and were living together in a three-bedroom house. 

Both parents regularly visited W.L. and A.H. Therapist Nicole Gaunt 

(“Therapist Gaunt”), who treated Mother and supervised the parents’ visitation 

with their children, testified that the children were “ecstatic” to see their parents

and that W.L. had asked multiple times when he could “move back home with 

his mom and dad.” (Tr. 142). She also explained that the parents engaged in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 5 of 13

imaginary play with their children and made a “good team as parents.” (Tr. 

146). She recommended allowing the children to visit their parents at the 

parents’ home. Gaunt further testified that Mother had a home with Father

and a job and was paying her bills. According to Gaunt, Mother’s life was as 

stable as it had ever been. Gaunt also testified that termination of the parentchild relationships would be detrimental to the children.

[8] The children’s foster mother testified that Mother and Father had kept in 

regular communication with the children and that W.L. had a good bond with 

Father. She further testified that it was evident that Mother and Father loved

their children.

[9] DCS Family Case Manager Ashley Nichter (“Case Manager Nichter”) testified 

that Father had: (1) maintained contact with her; (2) always been employed; 

(3) never had a positive drug screen; (4) completed a diagnostic assessment; (5) 

completed counseling; (5) maintained stable and appropriate housing; and (6) 

completed a home-based services program. Nevertheless, she recommended 

terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights because she was concerned 

about Mother’s current methadone use and past drug abuse. She further 

acknowledged that Father had completed the required services but was 

concerned whether he had benefited from them. 

[10] GAL Renbarger also recommended terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental 

rights because she believed that Father had not benefited from the domestic 

violence program. However, GAL Renbarger further testified that she had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 6 of 13

never met Mother, Father, W.L., or A.H. She had only met the children’s 

foster mother.

[11] After hearing the evidence, the trial court issued a ten-page, single-spaced order, 

which provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

The parents’ ability to care for the children at the time of the 

Factfinding is determinative. (Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office 

of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. 

denied.) By the time of the close of the bifurcated Factfinding, 

the parents had demonstrated substantial progress with their 

services. The Father had remained drug and alcohol free. He 

had maintained his employment and had secured a safe and 

stable home. The Mother was involved in her therapies and had 

refrained from the use of non-prescribed controlled substances 

and/or illegal substances. They have been living together 

without any report of domestic violence. They have made 

substantial progress in therapeutic visitations with their children 

and were poised to participate in in-home supervised visits if 

referred by the Department. However, there was no evidence 

from any service provider that the children could not be safely 

returned to the care of the parents at the time evidence was 

closed. There was optimism by Therapist Nicole Gaunt that 

reunification could eventually be achieved. In determining 

whether or not the conditions that resulted in the children’s 

removal will be remedied[,] the Court may consider the parties’ 

habitual patterns of conduct. (J.K.C. v. Fountain County

Department of Child Welfare, 470 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). 

In this case, the Father has been able to demonstrate that he can 

provide for his children. 

The issue has been the Mother’s lack of cooperation with the 

Center for Non Violence services and her abuse of controlled 

substances. The Mother’s inability to manage her anger has also 

been a chronic issue that has frustrated reunification. The Court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 7 of 13

notes, however, that she has recently begun to address her 

emotional challenges and has made progress in therapy. The 

Father has expressed his love for and his commitment to the 

children’s mother. They intend to remain together. The Father’s 

desire to remain with this wife is not sufficient to terminate his 

parental rights. (In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 2016).

(App. 26). The trial court denied DCS’s petition to terminate the parent-child 

relationships, thereby determining that DCS had failed to meet its burden. In 

addition, the trial court ordered DCS to consider another permanency plan that 

did not permanently sever the children’s relationships with their parents. GAL 

Renbarger appeals.2

Decision

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

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 

re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185, 1187-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. A 

parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is 

“perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” Bester v. Lake Cty. 

Office of Family and Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Troxel v. 

Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)). Indeed, the parent-child relationship is “one 

of the most valued relationships in our culture.” Id. We recognize, however, 

that parental interests are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s 

interests in determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate 

 

2 DCS filed a notice of intent not to file an appellee’s brief. Mother filed an appellee’s brief but did not 

challenge the GAL’s authority to appeal in place of DCS. Father did not file an appellant’s brief. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 8 of 13

parental rights. Id. Thus, “parental rights may be terminated when the parents 

are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities.” Id. (quoting In 

re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied).

[13] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we consider only the 

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

Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness 

credibility. Id. We also give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge 

the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 

N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013).

[14] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is 

required to allege and prove, among other things:

(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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 9 of 13

being alleged to be a child in need of services or a 

delinquent child;

(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 wellbeing 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.

IND. CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).

[15] The burden of proof in termination of parental rights cases is one of “clear and 

convincing evidence.”3 Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 147. In other words, if the State 

 

3

In its notice of intent, DCS conceded that if it had challenged the trial court’s denial of its petition to 

termination the parent-child relationships in this case, it would be appealing a negative judgment and would 

need to show an error of law to prevail. DCS further acknowledges that it could not meet its burden. DCS is 

correct. In Smith v. Dermatology Assocs. of Fort Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App.2012), we explained 

that:

A judgment entered against a party who bore the burden of proof at trial is a 

negative judgment. Garling v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 766 N.E.2d 409, 411 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. On appeal, we will not reverse a negative

judgment unless it is contrary to law. Mominee v. King, 629 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1994). To determine whether a judgment is contrary to law, we 

consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, together with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 10 of 13

fails to prove any one of these four statutory elements, then it is not entitled to a 

judgment terminating parental rights. Angela B. v. Lake Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 

888 N.E.2d 231, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

[16] When the trial court’s judgment contains specific findings of fact and 

conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re R.S., 56 

N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). First, we determine whether the evidence 

supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support 

the judgment. Id. We will set aside a trial court’s judgment terminating a 

parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Findings are clearly 

erroneous only when the record contains no facts or inferences to be drawn 

therefrom that support them. In re A.G., 6 N.E.3d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014). A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial 

court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment. Id. 

 

all the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. J.W. v. Hendricks Cnty. Office of 

Family & Children, 697 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). A party appealing from a 

negative judgment must show that the evidence points unerringly to a conclusion 

different from that reached by the trial court. Mominee, 629 N.E.2d at 1282.

However, DCS apparently believes that because GAL Renbarger was not the petitioner in this case, the 

contrary to law standard does not apply to her appeal. We need not determine whether the contrary to law 

standard applies to an appellant who was not a petitioner because: (1) Mother and Father do not argue that 

they are entitled to this less stringent standard of review; and (2) we affirm the trial court’s denial of the 

termination petition even when we apply the more stringent standard. 

 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 11 of 13

[17] Here, GAL Renbarger argues that the trial court erred in denying DCS’s 

termination petition. She specifically contends that the “dispositive

determination is whether the conditions that supported the children being 

removed or the reasons for out of home placement have been remedied.” 

(GAL Renbarger’s Br. 21). According to GAL Renbarger, DCS met its burden 

to prove that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted 

in the children’s placement outside the home would not be remedied. 

[18] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child’s removal or 

placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step 

analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014). We first identify the 

conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and then 

determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will 

not be remedied. Id. The second step requires trial courts to judge a parent’s 

fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration 

evidence of changed conditions and balancing any recent improvements against 

habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial 

probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. Habitual conduct may include 

parents’ prior criminal history, drug and alcohol abuse, history of neglect, 

failure to provide support, and a lack of adequate housing and employment. 

A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), 

trans. denied. The trial court may also consider services offered to the parent by 

DCS and the parent’s response to those services as evidence of whether 

conditions will be remedied. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 12 of 13

[19] Here, our review of the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment 

reveals that the children were first removed from Mother and Father in 2012 

because Mother had used marijuana during her pregnancy with A.H. and the 

family was homeless. The children were returned to the home but then 

removed again in 2013 after Father battered Mother. 

[20] Evidence at the termination hearing revealed that at the time of the hearing, 

Father had completed a batterer’s intervention program as well as the probation 

imposed following his domestic battery conviction. He had also completed a 

substance abuse group and had worked for the same roofing company for 

several years. He had never had a positive drug screen. Mother had also 

completed court-ordered programs and had a full-time job with a lawn care 

service. She had not used illegal substances for the past year and was willing to 

do “whatever it took” to be a better parent. (Tr. 114).

[21] Further, Mother and Father, who had been together for sixteen years, had 

recently gotten married and were living together in a three-bedroom home. 

Both parents regularly visited W.L. and A.H. Therapist Gaunt, who supervised 

the visitation, explained that the children were “ecstatic” to see their parents, 

and W.L. had asked multiple times when he could “move back home with his 

mom and dad.” (Tr. 142). She also explained that the parents engaged in 

imaginary play with their children and made a “good team as parents.” (Tr. 

146). She recommended allowing the children to visit their parents at the 

parents’ home. Therapist Gaunt further testified that Mother had a home with 

Father and a job and was paying her bills. According to Therapist Gaunt, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 02A03-1703-JT-479 | August 31, 2017 Page 13 of 13

Mother’s life was as stable as it had ever been. Therapist Gaunt also testified 

that termination of the parent-child relationships would be detrimental to the 

children.

[22] Because this evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that DCS did not 

meet its burden to prove that there was a reasonable probability that the 

conditions that resulted in the children’s removal would not be remedied, the 

trial court did not err in denying DCS’s petition to terminate the parent-child 

relationships. GAL Renbarger’s arguments are nothing more than a request 

that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 

147.

[23] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.