Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 1 of 12

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke 

Special Assistant to the State Public 

Defender 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC 

Brooklyn, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Robert J. Henke 

Deputy Attorney General 

David E. Corey 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Termination of the 

Parent-Child Relationship of: 

R.T., W.T., A.T., K.T., X.J., 

and A.J., 

M.C. (Mother), 

Appellant-Respondent, 

v. 

Indiana Department of Child 

Services, 

Appellee-Petitioner. 

September 21, 2016 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

90A04-1602-JT-302 

Appeal from the Wells Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Kenton W. 

Kiracofe, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

90C01-1507-JT-28 

90C01-1507-JT-29 

90C01-1507-JT-30 

90C01-1507-JT-31 

90C01-1507-JT-32 

90C01-1507-JT-33 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 12

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 

Case Summary 

[1] M.C. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her six 

children. She argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove there is a 

reasonable probability that the circumstances leading to the children’s removal 

will not be remedied and that termination is in the children’s best interests. 

Concluding that the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights is not 

clearly erroneous, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] In 2007, Mother began living with her then-boyfriend, A.T. (“Father”),1 and her 

twin sons from a previous relationship, A.J. and X.J, born June 9, 2006. When 

the twins were two years old, in July 2008, Mother left the home she had been 

sharing with Father and was homeless. Mother voluntarily placed the twins in 

the care of the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) because she had no 

place to live. The two boys were placed in foster care and adjudicated children 

in need of services (CHINS). On January 17, 2009, A.T. was born to Mother 

and Father. In April, the twins were returned to Mother, and the CHINS case 

was closed in late June. W.T. was born to Mother and Father February 3, 

 

1

 Father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to his four children and is not a party in this appeal. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 12

2010. Mother and Father were married in November 2010 and had two more 

children together: R.T., born April 10, 2011, and K.T., born June 10, 2013. 

[3] In early January 2014, Mother, Father, and the six children moved into the 

house of Father’s sister who had recently died. A few weeks later, DCS 

received a report that the children were being neglected and that Mother and 

Father were using illegal drugs. The next day, DCS went to the house with two 

deputies and a detective from the Wells County Sheriff’s Department to 

investigate. The house did not have central heat—rather, it had only space 

heaters in some of the rooms—and it was very cold. There was little food 

available to eat. The whole family was using only one of the house’s bedrooms 

to sleep. There was a hole in the wall of that bedroom, allowing the winter air 

to come inside. Sexually explicit magazines, a rifle, broken glass, clothes, toys, 

and cigarette butts littered the bedroom. Mother and Father were both 

disoriented, and Mother disclosed that the couple had used methamphetamine 

that morning. Mother later explained that she had been using heroin regularly 

for two or three years, but she started switching to methamphetamine about 

two weeks before the DCS investigation. 

[4] DCS met the children at paternal grandmother’s house, where Mother and 

Father had taken them that morning because the water lines were frozen at 

Mother and Father’s house. The children showed signs of neglect. For 

example, A.T., W.T., and R.T. were developmentally behind for their ages—

they were not toilet trained and did not know how to use utensils. All of the 

children had badly chapped skin, and K.T.’s feet were also discolored, causing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 12

DCS to be concerned that she might have frostbite and to take her to a hospital 

to be examined. DCS removed the children and placed them in foster care that 

day. Three days later, the trial court held a detention hearing and found that 

the children should be removed from the home because of the unfit and unsafe 

conditions and because of Mother’s and Father’s methamphetamine use. 

[5] DCS filed a CHINS petition for each of the children, and Mother agreed that 

the children were CHINS. The trial court entered a dispositional order 

requiring, in pertinent part: 

4. The child’s mother and the child’s father shall accept and 

successfully complete the following programs or services: 

a. Placement in licensed foster care; 

b. Substance abuse assessment, follow-up and follow any 

recommendations; 

c. Initial clinical evaluation; 

d. Supervised visitation; 

e. Random drug screens; and 

f. Home-based services. 

5. The child’s mother and the child’s father shall cooperate with 

the caseworker by maintaining weekly contact, accepting 

announced and unannounced home visits, providing the 

caseworker with verification of income and paternity, financial 

status, change on household composition, and by signing 

releases. The child’s mother and father must report changes to 

the above information within forty-eight (48) hours, not 

including weekends and holidays. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 12

Ex. 2, at 20 p. 5-6.2

[6] Mother did not comply with the trial court’s order. Mother attended the first 

two visits with her children in February 2014 and missed the third visit. DCS 

suspended visitation pending a meeting with the family case manager and 

explained to Mother that the meeting was necessary to restart visitation, but 

Mother did not attend the scheduled meeting. Mother also refused to provide 

DCS with current contact information. In May 2014, DCS had to request an 

investigator to find Mother. In June, Mother reported that she was living with 

friends, and by October, she had moved back into her mother’s home. Finally, 

in November, she went into treatment at Redemption House for the first time. 

While she was in Redemption House, DCS arranged one visitation for Mother 

with K.T. in January 2015. Shortly thereafter, Mother left treatment “[t]o get 

high[,]” Tr. p. 99, and she moved in with friends. Mother later reported to her 

addictions counselor that, around this time, she was trading sex for drugs. Also 

in January 2015, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights. 

[7] Mother was arrested in March 2015 and charged with Level 5 felony dealing in 

methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of precursors, and Class A 

misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Mother opted to enter the drugcourt program and was placed in Redemption House a second time. 

 

2

 The trial court entered a separate order for each child. All of the orders are substantially the same. We cite 

this one as representative of all six orders. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 6 of 12

[8] On June 23, it became clear that DCS could not complete the hearing on the 

January termination petitions before the 180-day statutory deadline. The trial 

court dismissed the January termination petitions without prejudice, and DCS 

filed the current petitions on July 2, 2015. 

[9] The trial court held three hearings in August and September, while Mother was 

still living in Redemption House. In January 2016, the trial court issued an 

order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Relevant to this appeal, the trial 

court concluded that the conditions that led to the removal of the children from 

the home were unlikely to be remedied and that termination was in the 

children’s best interests. 

[10] Mother now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision 

[11] Mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

termination of her parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental 

rights, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. In re I.A., 

934 N.E.2d 1127, 1132 (Ind. 2010). Rather, we consider only the evidence and 

reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment of the juvenile 

court. Id. We will not set aside the juvenile court’s judgment unless it is clearly 

erroneous. Id. To determine whether a judgment terminating parental rights is 

clearly erroneous, we review whether the evidence clearly and convincingly 

supports the juvenile court’s findings and whether the findings clearly and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 7 of 12

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

2016).3

[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 

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 child in need of services; 

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child[.] 

[13] Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by 

clear and convincing evidence. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1133. 

I. Reasonable Probability That the Conditions Resulting 

in Removal Will Not Be Remedied 

[14] Mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s 

conclusion that she was unlikely to remedy the conditions that resulted in the 

 

3

 Mother contends that two of the factual findings entered by the trial court are unsupported by the record. 

Because neither fact affects our analysis, we do not address whether there is support in the record for the trial 

court’s finding. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 8 of 12

removal of the children. 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, second, 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. In determining 

fitness, trial courts have discretion to weigh a parent’s prior history against 

efforts made only shortly before termination, and courts may find that a 

parent’s past behavior is the best predictor of her future behavior. Id. 

[15] Here, the children were removed because of Mother’s failure to supply the 

children with adequate shelter, care, and supervision, and because of Mother’s 

drug use. Mother argues that at the time of the termination hearing, she had 

been sober for six months and she “was prepared to meet the basic needs of her 

children if they were returned to her care.” Appellant’s Br. p. 15. However, 

Mother’s history with drugs and struggling to care for her children goes back 

years, not months. Mother had to place the twins, A.J. and X.J., in DCS 

custody because she had no home in 2008. She testified that she began using 

prescription medication in 2010 and used heroin daily from approximately 2011 

until 2014. When DCS intervened in 2014, Mother was using 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 9 of 12

methamphetamine, living in squalor with the children, and all of the children 

showed signs of neglect. Mother further acknowledges that, from January 2014 

until March 2015, she “demonstrated a pattern . . . of failing to maintain 

sobriety and of failing to meet the basic needs of her children.” Id. at 14. In 

particular, Mother lived at seven different addresses from January 2014 until 

she was arrested fourteen months later. After her arrest, Mother spent the 

remaining months before the termination hearing in the Allen County Jail and 

Redemption House—also not locations where she could care for her children. 

She did not complete treatment for her addictions before the first petition to 

terminate her parental rights, leaving the treatment facility “[t]o get high.” Tr. 

p. 99. At one point, she reported trading sex to get drugs. She refused to tell 

DCS where she was living. She had no contact with the five older children for 

nineteen months and no contact with the baby for nine months. 

[16] The trial court’s conclusion that the conditions will not be remedied is 

consistent with Prince v. Department of Child Services, 861 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2007), which Mother attempts to distinguish. In Prince, we concluded that 

there was sufficient evidence to find the condition leading to removal was 

unlikely to be remedied because Prince made only limited efforts at treatment 

until it was ordered as part of her probation in a criminal cause, and treatment 

did not begin until after the termination petition had been filed. Id. at 1230-31. 

Here, we have substantially the same circumstances. For more than a year, 

Mother made very little progress toward treating her addiction and reuniting 

with her children. Then, in March 2015, after the first termination petitions 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 10 of 12

were filed, Mother was arrested and charged with two felonies and a 

misdemeanor related to drug use and manufacture. That was when Mother 

opted into drug court and addressed her addiction issues—when her alternative 

was to face criminal charges—not when treatment would have facilitated 

reunification with her children. 

[17] Mother is essentially asking us to reweigh the evidence, giving more weight to 

her recent sobriety than her past history, which we cannot do. See In re E.M., 4 

N.E.3d at 642. Based on Mother’s history and the circumstances surrounding 

her recent sobriety, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining 

that the circumstances that resulted in the removal of the children are unlikely 

to be remedied.

II. Best Interests of the Children 

[18] Mother next argues that termination is not in the children’s best interests. In 

determining what is in a child’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 so doing, the trial court must subordinate the interests of 

the parent to those of the child. Id. The court need not wait until a child is 

irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. “A 

parent’s historical inability to provide a suitable environment, along with the 

parent’s current inability to do the same, supports finding termination of 

parental rights is in the best interests of the children.” In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 

278, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 11 of 12

[19] In this case, Mother has a lengthy history of not being able to provide a suitable 

home environment for her children, and she spent a substantial portion of the 

time that her children were waiting for her in foster care moving from place to 

place and using methamphetamine. Consequently, she remained unable to 

provide a suitable environment for her children at the time of the termination 

hearings. Beginning in 2008, A.J. and X.J. were adjudicated CHINS because 

Mother could not provide adequate shelter. That CHINS case was resolved in 

2009. Mother was using drugs by 2010, and she was using heroin on a regular 

basis for two or three years before switching to methamphetamine about two 

weeks before the CHINS cases underlying these petitions. Throughout the 

majority of the CHINS proceedings, Mother continued using 

methamphetamine, she moved frequently, and she had no apparent means of 

support. Finally, at the time of the termination hearing, twenty months after 

the children were removed from her care, Mother was living at Redemption 

House and, although she was finally sober and planning for the future, she was 

still without the present ability to care for her children. In contrast, DCS 

presented a satisfactory plan for permanent placement of the children, where 

they will be cared for by parents who are familiar with the children’s special 

needs resulting from years of neglect. 

[20] Based on Mother’s historical inability to care for the children and her inability 

at the time of the termination hearing, the trial court did not err in concluding 

that it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the parent-child relationship 

with Mother. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A04-1602-JT-302 | September 21, 2016 Page 12 of 12

[21] Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.