Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 1 of 17

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 MOTHER

Erin L. Berger

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT FATHER

Adam J. Farrar

Van Haaften & Farrar

Mt. Vernon, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Termination of the ParentChild Relationship of:

T.T., K.T., and L.T. (Minor 

Children),

S.J.-T. and K.T.,

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

March 28, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

65A04-1610-JT-2393

Appeal from the Posey Circuit Court

The Honorable James M. Redwine, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

65C01-1601-JT-10, 

65C01-1601-JT-11, and 

65C01-1601-JT-12
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 2 of 17

Indiana Department of Child 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] S.J.-T. (“Mother”) and K.T. (“Father”) separately appeal1the trial court’s 

termination of their parental rights over their minor children, T.T., K.T., and L.T. 

(“Children”). Mother raises one issue on appeal, in which Father joins, which we 

restate as follows: whether the trial court committed clear error when it adjudicated 

Children to be Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”), thereby making its 

subsequent termination of their parental rights also clearly erroneous. Father raises

an additional issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: whether the trial court 

committed clear error when it terminated his parental rights rather than establishing 

a permanent guardianship.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mother and Father (collectively, “Parents”) are the biological parents of T.T., born 

May 2, 2001; L.T., born February 8, 2010; and K.T., born March 14, 2013. On 

 

1

 Father specifically “concurs and joins in the Mother’s argument, including her Statement of Issue, Statement of 

Case, Statement of Facts, Summary of Argument, Argument, and Conclusion in her Appellant’s Brief . . . .” 

Father’s Br. at 4 n.1. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 3 of 17

September 12, 2014, Parents placed Children with family members because Parents 

were concerned about their ability to provide for Children financially. On September 

16, 2014, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) investigated allegations 

of neglect against Parents toward Children. The allegations included that the 

Parents’ home was dirty and unsanitary; one or both Parents had a staph infection 

while caring for K.T., who was diagnosed with neuroblastoma cancer and had a port 

that needed to be kept clean and properly maintained; the Parents engaged in 

domestic violence in the home in the presence of Children; the Parents had untreated 

mental illnesses; and the Parents engaged in drug use. On October 6, Children’s 

maternal aunt and uncle, A.H. and K. H., and Children’s maternal grandparents, 

C.J. and R.J.,2(collectively, “Guardians”), filed petitions for guardianships of 

Children. The aunt and uncle were granted temporary guardianship over T.T. and 

L.T. and the grandparents were granted temporary guardianship of K.T.

[4] On October 14, 2014, DCS filed petitions alleging Children to be CHINS. On 

October 21, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the guardianship petitions and the 

CHINS petitions. The court granted the emergency petitions for guardianships of 

Children. The court also determined Children were CHINS based on Parents’ 

ongoing domestic violence, untreated mental health issues, ongoing substance abuse, 

and failure to provide adequate medical treatment for Children. 

 

2

 Children’s maternal aunt, B.J., lives with maternal grandparents and was later added as a Guardian in the 

guardianship case involving K.T.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 4 of 17

[5] On January 25, 2016, DCS filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights to 

Children. The trial court held a termination fact-finding hearing on April 25, 26, and 

27, 2016, and July 20 and 22, 2016. The termination hearing and hearing on the 

guardianships were consolidated by agreement of all parties. At that time, Children 

remained subject to the guardianships and were in the care of Guardians. 

[6] On September 21, 2016, the trial court issued a Judgment Terminating Parental 

Rights in which it issued the following relevant Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

[On] September 16, 2014, the Department investigated an allegation of 

neglect against the Mother and the Father toward their three (3) 

children: [T.T.]; [L.T.]; and [K.T.] (collectively the “Children”).

At that time, [T.T.] was l3 years old, [L.T.] was 4 years old, and 

[K.T.] was one (1) year old.

The allegations included, but were not limited to the Mother and 

Father maintaining a dirty and unsanitary home, one (1) or both 

having staph infection while caring for [K.T.], who was diagnosed 

with neuroblastoma cancer and who had a port which needed to be 

kept clean and properly maintained, domestic violence in the home 

between the Mother and the Father[,] most of which occurred in the 

children’s presence, mental illness, and drug use (namely[,] synthetic 

marijuana).

[On] September 29, 2014, the Mother filed for and obtained a 

Protective Order against the Father. The allegations included that the 

Father “smashed [the Mother’s] head into the wall” and “kicked [the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 5 of 17

Mother] in the head and back.” The Mother alleged the Father then 

kicked her out of the home.

On the same day, the Father allegedly attempted to set the parties’ 

house on fire.

The next day, September 30, 2014, the Father attempted to commit 

suicide. Officers attempted to provide assistance after they discovered 

blood all over the Father’s vehicle. Despite the Protective Order, the 

Father was located at the parties’ residence with the Mother.

* * *

The Children have been removed from the Mother’s and Father’s care 

and custody since October 10, 2014.

The Department determined that the Mother and Father had 

substantiated allegations of neglect in 2009 and 2011 as a result of 

domestic violence and substance abuse issues in the home. 

Reasonable services were provided to the Mother and Father during 

that time.

During the CHINS, and specifically between March, 2015 and April, 

2016—while advising the Department that they would do whatever it 

takes to get the Children returned to them—the Mother and Father 

both admitted to their lack of compliance with this Court’s order 

regarding sobriety. In fact, the Mother and Father combined admitted 

to substance abuse at least nine (9) times, had diluted tests at least 20 

times, and failed to appear for their required testing at least 83 times 

during this 13 month interval.

Even since April, 2016, the parents admit to their lack of compliance 

with the Court’s order inasmuch as the Mother admitted she used at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 6 of 17

least two (2) times and they both admitted that they failed to appear 

for scheduled substance abuse testing even though the parents 

acknowledged it was very important to get the Children back to do so.

The Father does not have a valid driver’s license. The Father admitted 

his driving privileges are suspended for life. Despite the Father having 

no license, several witnesses testified to seeing the Father drive to 

some of the proceedings herein.

The parents did not fully take advantage and participate in counseling. 

At some point, the counselor even went to the Mother’s and Father’s 

home. During at least one (1) counseling session, the Mother 

admitted that both the Mother and Father had a hard time 

maintaining basic functioning for themselves, much less for the 

Children.

The Mother also acknowledged that the relationship between the 

Mother and Father was volatile and that the counselor simply 

recommended that the parties separate and/or divorce.

Nevertheless, the parents remain married and did not separate during 

these proceedings—even with the Mother’s active Protective Order 

against the Father.

While both parents are diagnosed with mental health impairments, 

they both admitted that they do not follow prescribed treatment . . . .

The parents testified that domestic violence has been long and 

reoccurring during their marriage. The Mother testified that it began 

almost immediately after the marriage began and escalated to the 

point that she told her counselor that she feared the Father would kill 

her family.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 7 of 17

More importantly, the domestic violence was rampant in the house. 

[T.T.] testified that she had witnessed over 50 episodes, some of which 

began as verbal arguments which erupted into full physical 

altercations. [T.T.] testified that both parents participated in the 

physical altercations. During one (1) such episode, [T.T.] testified that 

she took [L.T.] and [K.T.] into another room to protect them. The 

parents would lock each other out of the house, sometimes with the 

Children. The parties’ counselor confirmed [T.T.’s] testimony when

she testified that on one (1) occasion, the Mother purposefully locked 

[K.T.] out of the house because she knew the Father would see her 

and then come back home after the Father told the Mother that he was 

leaving. The Court notes that the 2009 CHINS stemmed from the 

parties’ oldest child, I.J., being injured during a domestic dispute in 

the home. The Father, upon cross examination, testified that the 

Children witnessed numerous incidents of verbal or physical 

altercations between the Mother and the Father throughout their 

lifetime and actually calculated those incid[ents] to approximate One 

Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-two (1,382).

* * *

[T.T.] testified that she often had to get her siblings up and ready for 

school because the Mother would not—even when the Mother was 

not working.

Most importantly, [T.T.] testified that she did not see her parents 

changing their behavior. She noted that despite having two (2) prior 

CHINS proceedings and having ample opportunity to change their 

behavior during this proceeding, she did not think they could 

permanently change their behavior to enable them to care for her 

siblings or her. Even more egregious, [T.T.] stated that she feared for 

[L.T.] and [K.T.] if returned to her parents inasmuch as she believed 

they would be in danger.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 8 of 17

Ms. [B.T.], the Father’s mother, who lived with the family for some 

time[,] testified about the verbal arguments, domestic violence, and the 

fact that [T.T.]—and herself—tended to the other children’s needs 

more so than either the Mother or the Father did. She believed it 

would be detrimental to allow any of the Children to return to the 

Mother’s or Father’s home. 

The Mother’s family testified nearly the same . . . . They each believed 

that if the parents had not gotten the issues resolved by now that they 

likely never would resolve the issues . . . .

The Mother’s family testified that the parents[’] stability in housing, 

mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and general 

uncleanliness were ongoing issues for which [sic] the parents did not 

seem able to alleviate over the years. They each testified these issues 

contributed to the reasons they sought guardianship over the Children 

and why they do not believe the Children’s best interests lie in 

returning them to the parents.

The family, including the Father’s mother, testified that the parents 

simply lack the common sense and insight necessary to properly care 

for the Children . . . .

The Mother and Father oppose the termination . . . . Yet, they readily 

agree that they missed appointments with their Family Case Manager, 

did not attend all counseling appointments, used drugs during both 

CHINS matters, did not take their medicines as prescribed, failed to 

attend 83 drug screens, and showed diluted results for approximately 

20 drug screens . . . .

The Father and Mother lack the necessary comprehension to 

understand the nature and effect that their arguing, fighting, substance 

abuse, and mental illness[es] have on the Children and their ability to 

properly care for the Children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 9 of 17

Two of the children, [L.T.] and [T.T.], are placed together in relative 

care with a maternal aunt and uncle. The child [K.T.] is placed with 

the maternal grandparents. This placement was determined to be in 

the best interests of the children due to the fact that [K.T.] had 

significant care needs based on her medical condition. [K.T.] was 

diagnosed with cancer in 2014 at the age of six months and needed 

more individualized care that the grandparents were able to provide. 

The relative placements are close and provide care for all the children, 

and they ensure sibling contact.

Each child is strongly bonded with the relatives.

Each child is doing well in the care of the current relative placements.

Department’s plan for each child is that they be adopted by the current 

relative caregivers.

It is in the best interest[s] of each Child to be adopted due to the 

inability of the parents to provide appropriate care and supervision for 

the children.

The Department, Guardian Ad Litem, and the relative caregivers all 

considered the possibility of a less restrictive outcome for each child, 

namely that of guardianship. Due to the number of years that the 

parents have engaged in domestic violence, the number of years of 

substance use, and the long-term inconsistency, those parties do not 

believe that guardianship is an appropriate plan for the children. The 

oldest child, [T.T.], also demonstrated a desire to be adopted rather 

than to be the subject of a guardianship. Despite multiple 

interventions by the Department, a multitude of services, and informal 

support from family, the parents have not been able to provide a stable 

environment for the children during the majority of the children’s 

lifetimes. The court finds the testimony of [T.T.] to be persuasive 

evidence that the potentially unsettled nature of a guardianship[] and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 10 of 17

possibility of the parents threatening the stability of the children is not 

in the best interests of the children.

As the Guardian Ad Litem noted, this case is not simply a matter of 

having a “more permanent” plan in adoption than is available with 

guardianship. Each time there has been a problem in the past, the 

children’s extended family members have stepped in to care for them. 

While it is a positive situation to have informal supports, this has 

happened on numerous occasions and has caused the children a great 

deal of instability. The parents in this matter have shown that they are 

minimally able to care for themselves, let alone for the children. 

Although the parents have tried for years to fully address the issues 

that have endangered the children, the parents have never been able to 

do so long term. Each time the parents have obtained some degree of 

stability following the Department’s intervention, they have returned 

to prior patterns of behavior that endanger the children and put the 

children in the middle of violent and turbulent relationships. This is 

not a pattern which should continue for the children.

The Guardian Ad Litem, Ms. Hadley, testified that the parents cannot 

maintain simple care for themselves . . .[and] “are minimally able to 

take care of their own needs,” much less take care of the Children’s 

needs. Ms. Hadley testified that she did not believe the parents could[] 

or would permanently change their behavior to care for the Children’s 

best interests. Rather, Ms. Hadley stated that the parents were barely 

able to function on their own.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

* * *

It is also clear and this Court is convinced from the evidence that there 

is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the 

Children’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 11 of 17

the parents will not be remedied and that there is a reasonable 

probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses 

a threat to the well-being of the Children . . . . [T]he parents exhibited 

habitual patterns of neglect which included[] suffering mental illness 

which w[ere] not fully and properly treated, failing to follow 

prescribed mental health treatment by failing to purchase necessary 

medications, weaning oneself off prescribed medications without a 

doctor, continuing to abuse illegal substances, continuing in a pattern 

of verbal and physical abuse, and continuing in a pattern of criminal 

conduct whereby the Father regularly drove after having his driving 

privileges revoked. This behavior does not include the day-to-day 

issues the parents suffered requiring their then 13 year old to provide 

caretaking duties to her then 4 year old and 1 year old siblings. As a 

result, [T.T.] testified that she did not feel safe and did not want to 

return to her parents’ home. Moreover, she testified that she feared for 

[L.T.] and [K.T.] if they were returned to her parents[’] home as she 

believed they would be in danger. The parents are unable to take care 

of their own needs, much less take care of the Children’s needs. The 

parents also failed to complete all reasonable services provided to 

them by the Department, namely mental health services and substance 

abuse services. The Court notes that the services offered were fairly 

simple to follow and/or complete—i.e., appear for meetings and 

appear for drug screens. The parents ongoing substance abuse and 

domestic violence issues have not been remedied despite repeated 

services provided to the parents in each of the prior two (2) CHINS 

matters. In fact, the parents each testified that they believed the 

domestic violence and/or substance abuse issues were resolved after 

having received services in each of the cases before this one—only to 

have new charges filed with the exact same allegations of domestic 

violence and/or substance abuse.

In light of the above, the Court finds that termination is in the best 

interests of the Children and society.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 12 of 17

Although termination is intended as a last resort and typically only 

when all other reasonable efforts have failed, the need for permanency 

is certainly a factor in determining whether termination is in a child’s 

best interests. This Court considered other reasonable efforts, 

including a guardianship. As noted above, a temporary guardianship 

was granted and those proceedings were set concurrently with these 

proceedings to allow the parents ample time to receive and take 

advantage of the services offered to them by the Department. In fact, 

this Court would have preferred a guardianship. Unfortunately, the 

parents did not take advantage of the services offered to them. It has 

been proved by clear and convincing evidence that the guardianship 

was just not workable under the facts and circumstances herein.

There is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children, 

namely adoption through the Guardians. It has been proven by clear 

and convincing evidence that termination is appropriate herein and 

that terminating the parent-child relationship is in the Children’s best 

interest[s].

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED 

that the parent-child relationship between the children, [T.T.], [L.T.], 

and [K.T.] and the parents, [S.J.-T.] and [K.T.], is hereby terminated.

Mother’s App. Vol. II at 46-55. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Parents maintain that the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights was 

clearly erroneous. We begin our review of this issue 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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 13 of 17

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. Ofc. of Family & Children (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.

[8] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights can occur in Indiana, DCS 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 wellbeing of the child.

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

adjudicated a child in need of services.

* * *

(C) [and] that termination is in the best interests of the child . . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 14 of 17

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) (2016). DCS need establish only one of the requirements 

of subsection (b)(2)(B) before the trial court may terminate parental rights. Id. 

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).

[9] When reviewing a termination of parental rights, we will not reweigh the evidence or 

judge the credibility of the witnesses. Peterson v. Marion Cty. 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 Cty. Ofc. of Family & 

Children (In re L.S.), 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). trans. denied.

[10] 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 

Cty. Ofc. 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. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 15 of 17

[11] Parents do not specifically challenge the trial court’s findings of fact or legal 

conclusions. Therefore, “[t]o the extent that [they] argue[] that the trial court’s 

findings or conclusions are clearly erroneous, [they] ha[ve] waived th[at] issue by 

failing to make a cogent argument.” Runkel v. Miami Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re 

B.R.), 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied; see Ind. Appellate Rule 

46(A)(8)(a). Rather, Parents contend that the trial court erred when it adjudicated 

Children to be CHINS in the first place and, therefore, the termination of their 

parental rights was also clearly erroneous. 

[12] Essentially, Parents argue that a court cannot find children to be CHINS when the 

children are under a guardianship. However, Parents cite no legal authority and 

make no cogent argument for such a proposition. Therefore, they waive that 

argument for our review. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a); see also Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 

1267 (Ind. 2015). Moreover, Parents did not challenge the CHINS allegations when 

they were initially made or at the termination hearing. In fact, at the July 30, 2015, 

permanency hearing, Parents “agree[d] that their children remain[ed] children in 

need of services.” Mother’s App. Vol. II at 16. They may not raise a challenge to 

the CHINS determination for the first time on appeal.3 See, e.g., Smith v. Marion Cty. 

 

3

 Parents cite McKinney v. Greene Cty. Office of Family and Children (In re C.M.), 675 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), 

as support for their right to challenge the CHINS adjudication for the first time on appeal. However, In re C.M. 

stands for no such proposition. Rather, in that case we held that a parent is not precluded from contesting CHINS 

allegations in a subsequent termination proceeding. Id. at 1138. Here, Parents were not prevented from challenging the 

initial CHINS allegations at the termination hearing; they merely failed to do so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 16 of 17

Dep’t of Public Welfare, 635 N.E.2d 1144, 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. The 

challenge to the CHINS adjudication is waived. 

[13] Father raises an additional issue in his appeal. He contends that, even if the CHINS 

adjudication is appropriate, the trial court erred in terminating parental rights rather 

than placing Children in permanent guardianships. In other words, he challenges the 

trial court’s legal conclusions that termination is in Children’s best interests and that 

the plan of adoption was a satisfactory plan. However, because he does not contend 

that any of the specific findings of fact are unsupported by the record, “we do not 

look to the evidence but only to the findings to determine whether they support the 

judgment.” Smith v. Miller Builders, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). 

[14] Here, the trial court clearly considered the option of permanent guardianships and, 

in fact, stated its preference for such placements over termination. However, given 

the uncontested findings in this case, the trial court held that guardianships were 

unworkable and termination of parental rights and adoption by Guardians was in 

Children’s best interests. That determination was supported by the uncontested 

findings that Parents had engaged in years of domestic violence, substance abuse, 

and inconsistency in caring for Children; Parents failed to benefit from years of 

offered services; neither DCS, the Guardian Ad Litem, the relative caregivers, nor 

the oldest child, T.T., believed Parents would ever be able to provide safe and 

adequate care for Children; Children needed stability and permanency; Children 

were doing well in their current relative placements and were strongly bonded with 

the relatives; and guardianships are potentially unsettled by nature and involve the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A04-1610-JT-2393 | March 28, 2017 Page 17 of 17

possibility of Parents threatening the stability of Children. Those findings support 

the trial court’s conclusions that Parents’ parental rights should be terminated and 

adoption by Guardians was a satisfactory plan. The trial court did not commit clear 

error. 

[15] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.