Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 1 of 11

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 N.E.

Kara A. Hancuff

Monroe County Public Defender

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT M.C.

Karen E. Wrenbeck

Monroe County Public Defender

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parental Rights of:

M-l.C., M-n.C. & M.E.C.

(Minor Children)

and

N.E. (Mother) and M.C. (Father)

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

January 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

53A05-1706-JT-1264

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit 

Court VII

The Honorable Stephen Galvin, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

53C07-1608-JT-519

53C07-1608-JT-520

53C07-1608-JT-521

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 2 of 11

Case Summary

[1] M.C. (“Father”) and N.E. (“Mother”) appeal the termination of their parental 

rights to their three children. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The undisputed facts are set forth in the trial court’s order.1 Mother and Father 

are the parents to three children: twins born in June 2013 and another child 

born in November 2014 (collectively “the children”). On March 7, 2015, 

marijuana smoke was detected coming from Mother’s apartment in 

Bloomington. Officers searched the apartment and found marijuana, crack 

cocaine, and eighty-eight Lortab pills in the bedroom where Mother and the 

children slept. The children could access the marijuana. Upon further search 

of the apartment, officers found two loaded guns and stolen lottery tickets. 

Mother was arrested and claimed that the lottery tickets belonged to Father. 

When questioned by officers, Father admitted that he had been at Mother’s 

home the day before she was arrested. Father also submitted to a drug screen, 

which was positive for marijuana. 

[3] The children were removed from their parents’ care at the time of Mother’s 

arrest. Two of the children were suffering from coughs, and one child was 

 

1 Because neither Mother nor Father challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, we accept them as true. See 

Maldem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1992) (“Because Maldem does not challenge the findings of the trial 

court, they must be accepted as true.”). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 3 of 11

recovering from pneumonia. Department of Child Services (DCS) filed 

children in need of services (CHINS) petitions, and the children were 

adjudicated CHINS on May 7 and later placed in a foster-care home, where 

they have remained for over two years. In June 2015, a dispositional hearing 

was held for both Mother and Father. Both parents were ordered to: maintain 

weekly contact with the DCS family case manager; participate in home-based 

counseling; complete a substance-abuse assessment and complete all treatment 

recommendations; submit to random drug and alcohol screens; and attend all 

scheduled visits with the children. 

[4] Amanda Kelly, a home-based family case worker with Ireland Home Based 

Services, began working with Mother and Father in November 2015. She 

supervised visits between the parents and the children and offered parenting 

instruction to Mother and Father. There were many issues with the visits: 

Mother had difficulty supervising the children by herself; Mother did not follow 

through on disciplining the children; Kelly had to intervene to ensure the 

children’s safety; Father was routinely late to visits; and the parents failed to 

bring adequate supplies, such as diapers and wipes. 

[5] Debra Hoesman, a mental-health practitioner, began counseling with Mother in 

February 2016. Hoesman completed a substance-abuse assessment on Mother 

in May 2016 and diagnosed Mother with cannabis dependence and major 

depressive disorder. Hoesman recommended that Mother have weekly therapy 

sessions. Mother attended only ten sessions, with her last appointment in June 

2016. During this time, Mother was also inconsistent in submitting to drug 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 4 of 11

screens, but when she did submit, she repeatedly failed. Mother frequently 

tested positive for marijuana and twice tested positive for heroin. Around the 

time Mother stopped seeing Hoesman, the DCS case manager noticed an 

increase in Mother’s marijuana use. Mother told the case manager that she 

used marijuana as a coping mechanism for stress. 

[6] Meanwhile, Father continued his involvement with illegal drugs and was 

arrested in June 2016 at Mother’s apartment. Officers found cocaine, forty 

grams of heroin, and a stolen handgun. Father was convicted in April 2017 of

one count of dealing in a narcotic drug and sentenced to eighteen years in the 

Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), with six years suspended. He will 

be incarcerated for approximately eight more years.2 Before his arrest, Father 

did not engage with DCS or its service providers, telling them that he was not 

interested in services, that he “was a good father,” that he had other things to 

do, and that he “was living the life and that was the way he had to make a 

living.” Appellants’ App. Vol II p. 27

3

; Tr. Vol. II p. 15. Father also told the 

case manager that he did not have a substance-abuse problem, but he never 

submitted to a drug screen after the CHINS adjudications. 

 

2 The trial court’s findings state the Father will be released in five years. However, IDOC’s offender search 

lists Father’s projected release date as January 2026. https://www.in.gov/apps/indcorrection/ofs/ofs (last 

visited 01/04/2018).

3 Mother and Father appealed separately but filed only one appendix. In his brief, Father stated that he 

would not “be filing an Appendix, as it would be identical to Mother’s and thus unduly duplicative.” 

Father’s Appellant’s Br. p. 4 (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 50(E)). Accordingly, we attribute the single 

appendix to both parties. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 5 of 11

[7] Shortly after Father’s arrest, Mother moved to Michigan but did not tell the 

DCS case manager that she was moving. Mother claimed that she moved 

because she was going to be evicted and needed the support of family. But

Mother had two sisters, two aunts, and two uncles living in Bloomington when 

she moved. After moving, Mother did not request that DCS arrange for her 

services to be transferred to Michigan. Mother also failed to maintain weekly 

contact with the case manager. 

[8] Mother last visited the children on June 15, 2016. She never traveled from 

Michigan to Indiana to see the children. Mother was supposed to see the 

children in November 2016 but did not make the trip. The children were 

“extremely disappointed.” Id. at 30. Mother later requested to have video 

contact with the children, but her request was denied because it had been 

approximately seven months since she had seen the children. 

[9] In August 2016, DCS filed its termination petitions. A hearing on the petitions 

was held in February 2017. During the hearing, the DCS case manager and 

Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for the children testified that 

termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests. See Tr. Vol. II pp. 63-64, 81. The trial court concluded: that the 

children had been removed from their parents for at least six months under a 

dispositional decree; that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in the removal of the children or the reasons for their continued 

placement outside of the home would not be remedied; that the continuation of 

the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being; that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 6 of 11

termination was in the children’s best interests; and that a satisfactory plan for 

the care and treatment of the children was in place—adoption. The trial court 

terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. 

[10] Mother and Father appeal. 

Discussion and Decision

[11] Mother and Father filed separate briefs, and where possible, we address their 

arguments as one. Both parents argue that the trial court erred when it 

terminated their parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental 

rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re K.T.K., 

989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). Rather, we consider only the evidence and 

reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment of the trial court. 

Id. When a trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions, we will not 

set aside the trial court’s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. To 

determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is clearly erroneous, 

we review whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether 

the findings support the judgment. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1143 (Ind. 

2016). 

[12] A petition to terminate parental rights must allege, 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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 7 of 11

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). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by 

clear and convincing evidence. In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231. If the court 

finds that the allegations in a petition are true, the court shall terminate the 

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

[13] Mother and Father both contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the 

trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in the children’s removal or continued placement outside the home 

would not be remedied. When a parent challenges this conclusion, we engage 

in a two-step analysis. “First, we must ascertain what conditions led to their 

placement and retention in foster care. Second, we determine whether there is 

a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.” K.T.K., 

989 N.E.2d at 1231. “The trial court must consider a parent’s habitual pattern 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 8 of 11

of conduct to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future 

neglect or deprivation.” Id. 

[14] The children were removed from the home due to Mother’s and Father’s drug 

use and the parents’ inability to provide an adequate home or proper care for 

their children. These conditions did not change over the course of the CHINS 

proceedings for either parent. Regarding Mother, she repeatedly failed her drug 

screens, testing positive for marijuana and heroin. Mother contends that she 

was drug free after moving to Michigan. She stated that she was working at 

Walmart, which requires all potential employees to submit to drug tests. But 

the trial court rejected this argument because Mother worked for Walmart 

when she lived in Bloomington and repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 29. Mother’s argument is a request for us to 

reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229. 

Mother also struggled to care for the children during her supervised visits. She 

failed to follow through on discipline, and on at least one occasion Kelly had to 

intervene to keep the children safe. Furthermore, Mother also stopped visiting 

the children after moving to Michigan and has not seen them since June 2016.4

 

4 Mother also argues that DCS ignored her requests to have services transferred to Michigan, and thus, the 

trial court erred when it terminated her parental rights. But the trial court’s findings of fact explicitly state 

that Mother “did not request that DCS arrange for her to participate in services in Michigan. DCS could 

have arranged for drug screens and other services in Michigan.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 28. Mother’s 

argument is nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. K.T.K., 989 

N.E.2d at 1229. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 9 of 11

[15] As for Father, he contends that the State relied solely on his incarceration to 

support its petition for termination. Father compares his situation to that of the 

father in K.E. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015). 

In K.E., the father was incarcerated before his child was born and did 

“everything he had been asked while incarcerated, actively participated in 

substance abuse programs, established regular visitation with K.E., and spoke 

to K.E. every night on the phone.” Id. at 645. Our Supreme Court overturned 

the termination of father’s parental rights. Here, Father’s situation is readily

distinguishable from K.E. After the CHINS adjudications, Father refused to 

engage with DCS or any of its service providers. He told them that he was not 

interested in services, that he “was a good father,” that he had other things to 

do, and that he “was living the life and that was the way he had to make a 

living.” Appellants’ App. Vol II p. 27; Tr. Vol. II p. 15. Father was eventually 

incarcerated for selling drugs. Father has not participated in any services since 

his incarceration. There is sufficient evidence to show that neither Mother nor 

Father prioritized the needs of the children above their own. The trial court did 

not err when it concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the 

conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for their 

placement outside the home will not be remedied.5

 

5

Father also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that there is a 

reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s wellbeing. Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive and requires clear and convincing 

evidence of only one of the circumstances listed in subsection (B). See In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146, 153 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2009). Because we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 10 of 11

[16] Additionally, Mother and Father both challenge the court’s conclusion that 

termination was in the children’s best interests. To determine what is in the

children’s best interests, the trial court must look to the totality of the evidence. 

In re A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In doing 

so, the trial court must subordinate the interests of the parent to those of the 

children. Id. The court need not wait until the children are irreversibly harmed 

before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. We have previously held 

that recommendations by both the DCS case manager and CASA to terminate 

parental rights, in addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal 

will not be remedied, is clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the 

best interests of the children. Id. at 1158-59. Here, both the DCS case manager 

and the CASA testified that termination was in the children’s best interests. See 

Tr. Vol. II pp. 63-64, 81. And, as already discussed, there is sufficient evidence 

to support the conclusion that the conditions resulting in removal or placement 

outside of the home will not be remedied. Furthermore, the children have spent 

most of their lives in foster care because the parents are incapable of providing a 

safe, stable home free of illegal drug use. The children, however, were excelling 

in their foster home, which was pre-adoptive. The court found that the children 

were “smart, happy, [and] well-adjusted” and that adoption was a satisfactory 

 

that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for 

placement outside the home will not be remedied, we do not address this argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1706-JT-1264 | January 11, 2018 Page 11 of 11

plan for them. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 31. Accordingly, the trial court did 

not err when it concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.

[17] Affirmed. 

May, J., and Altice, J. concur.