Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 1 of 13

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

Matthew W. Lutz

Evansville, 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 Involuntary 

Termination of the Parent-Child 

Relationship of:

C.L. and N.L. (Minor Children)

and

T.N. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 16, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-1790

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Brett J. Niemeier, 

judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

82D04-1802-JT-262, 82D04-1802-

JT-263
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 13

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] T.N. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two minor 

children. She contends that the trial court’s termination order is not supported 

by sufficient evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Mother and K.L. (Father) have two children together – C.L. born in September 

2007 and N.L. born in November 2012.1 C.L. and N.L. (the Children) are 

involved in these proceedings. Mother also has given birth to five other 

children. Two are now adults, and three were adopted in 2007 after Mother 

voluntarily terminated her parental rights to them. Mother has a long history of 

involvement with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS), beginning 

around the year 2000. This history includes eight prior substantiations and 

three CHINS cases over the years. The prior cases involved drugs, neglect, 

and/or physical abuse.

[4] On February 13, 2017, DCS received a report alleging that Mother was 

exhibiting erratic behaviors indicative of drug use. Further, C.L. had been 

 

1

Father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 13

absent from school since February 7. When school officials went to the home 

for a welfare check, they became concerned regarding Mother’s behavior.

[5] William Wargel, with DCS, visited the home on February 14, 2017, to assess 

the situation. Mother complained to Wargel that there were spider mites in her 

home crawling all over her, but Wargel observed no bugs. A pest control 

company later confirmed there were no such bugs in the home. Wargel 

observed red marks on Mother’s skin that appeared like “pick marks” indicative 

of methamphetamine use. Transcript at 52. He observed that Mother was 

“acting erratically, fidgety, and could not keep a straight thought.” Id. Mother 

refused a drug screen. After this visit, Mother avoided DCS for about six days 

and still did not send C.L. back to school. 

[6] In the meantime, on February 16, 2017, DCS filed petitions alleging C.L. and 

N.L. to be CHINS. Wargel located Mother and the Children on February 20, 

and the Children were removed from the home that day and placed in foster 

care. The Children were adjudicated CHINS on March 8, 2017, with Mother 

entering a stipulation.

[7] Following the dispositional hearing on April 19, 2017, the trial court ordered 

Mother to participate in a number of services. Of particular note, Mother was 

ordered to obtain substance abuse and mental health evaluations and follow 

any treatment recommendations, submit to random drug screens, attend 

supervised visitation, keep all appointments, and remain drug and alcohol free. 

Mother quickly fell out of compliance and by August was found in contempt.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 13

[8] A court-ordered facilitation meeting was held on February 1, 2018. At the 

time, Mother did not have a stable home or finances, had not visited with the 

Children for over a month, and had not completed mental health and substance 

abuse evaluations or treatment. Although Mother tested clean at the meeting, 

she had not submitted to drug testing for months leading up to the meeting. 

While Mother had made little to no effort at reunification, the Children were 

thriving in foster care. Ultimately, the court facilitator recommended that DCS 

seek termination of Mother’s parental rights.

[9] On February 8, 2018, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights 

with respect to the Children. The trial court held a factfinding hearing on June 

15, 2018. At that hearing, DCS presented evidence regarding Mother’s nearly 

complete lack of effort in this case, as summarized below.

[10] Although initially compliant with supervised visits, Mother cancelled all visits 

in June and July 2017. After her Christmas Eve visit, Mother did not see the 

Children again until March 7, 2018. Thereafter, visits were suspended by the 

court due to the negative impact that the inconsistent visits were having on the 

Children. At the time of the final hearing, therefore, Mother had only seen the 

Children once in nearly six months.

[11] Between March 2017 and the end of May 2018, Mother was required to submit 

to 138 drug screens. She had 65 no shows, 59 positive screens, and only 14 

clean screens. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on May 21, 2018, 

less than a month before the termination hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 5 of 13

[12] Early in the CHINS case, Mother was ordered to complete substance abuse and 

mental health evaluations and treatment. More than a year after the Children 

had been removed from her home, Mother completed an initial evaluation at 

Stepping Stones on February 23, 2018, but she failed to attend three consecutive 

follow-up therapy sessions in March and was discharged from the program. 

Four days prior to the termination hearing, Mother went to Counseling for

Change for an intake appointment. At the time of the hearing, Mother had yet 

to complete any recommended treatment.

[13] Throughout the CHINS proceedings, Mother failed to maintain stable housing 

or income. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother testified that she 

had been employed at McDonalds for just one month. She was living in a onebedroom apartment with her fiancé, W.F., who had just been released from 

incarceration. W.F. has been convicted of drug dealing in Texas and domestic 

battery (not of Mother) in Indiana. Prior to his most-recent incarceration, law 

enforcement had responded to a number of domestic calls in 2016 involving 

Mother and W.F., eventually resulting in a protective order against W.F. 

Family case manager (FCM) Nathan Austin, as well as the CASA, expressed 

concern regarding Mother’s relationship with W.F.

[14] Finally, DCS presented evidence that the Children were thriving in foster 

placement. C.L. had struggled academically and behaviorally at school while 

in Mother’s care. The CASA testified that C.L. had made significant progress 

in foster care, going from a D/F student to a B student with “absolutely no 

behavior issues.” Id. at 57. Both the CASA and FCM Austin opined that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 6 of 13

termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the Children. 

Further, although the Children were not in a pre-adoptive foster home, FCM 

Austin testified that the plan for the Children was adoption through the SNAP 

program. He indicated that they would be adopted into the same home and 

that he foresaw “[n]o obstacle whatsoever” to them being adopted. Id. at 78.

[15] On July 11, 2018, the trial court issued orders terminating Mother’s parental 

rights with respect to C.L. and N.L. Mother now appeals. Additional facts will 

be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

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

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 

(Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences 

most favorable to the judgment. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2004), trans. denied. In deference to the trial court’s unique position to assess 

the evidence, we will set aside its judgment terminating a parent-child 

relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. In light of the applicable clear and convincing 

evidence standard, we review to determine whether the evidence clearly and 

convincingly supports the findings and the findings clearly and convincingly 

support the judgment. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d at 628.

[17] We recognize that the traditional right of parents to “establish a home and raise 

their children is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 7 of 13

Constitution.” In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. 

Although parental rights are of constitutional dimension, the law provides for 

the termination of these rights when parents are unable or unwilling to meet 

their parental responsibilities. In re R.H., 892 N.E.2d 144, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2008). In addition, a court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those 

of the child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. In

re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The purpose of terminating 

parental rights is not to punish the parents, but to protect their children. Id.

[18] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur in Indiana, DCS 

is required to allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence, 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[.]

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). DCS must also prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child and that there is a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 8 of 13

satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the child. I.C. § 31-35-2-

4(b)(2)(C), (D).

[19] On appeal, Mother asserts that there is insufficient clear and convincing 

evidence that the conditions resulting in the Children’s removal would not be 

remedied, that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to 

the well-being of the Children, that termination is in the best interests of the 

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

Children following termination. In so arguing, Mother does not challenge any 

of the trial court’s specific findings as not supported by the evidence or claim 

that the judgment is not supported by the findings. She simply directs us to her 

own testimony that she had a job, an apartment, and sufficient income to 

provide for the Children, as well as that she had six clean screens in 2018 and 

had scheduled her first appointment at Counseling for Change.

[20] We reject Mother’s blatant invitation to reweigh the evidence. DSC presented 

ample evidence to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is a 

reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the Children’s removal or 

continued placement outside the home will not be remedied.2 In making this 

determination, the trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her 

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

 

2 The trial court determined that DCS had proven both subsections (b)(2)(B)(i) and (b)(2)(B)(ii). Because 

DCS was required to establish only one of these by clear and convincing evidence, we focus our review on 

subsection (b)(2)(B)(i).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 9 of 13

evidence of changed conditions. In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2001), trans. denied. The court must also evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns 

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

neglect or deprivation of the children. Id. In conducting this inquiry, courts 

may consider 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. A.F. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 762 

N.E.2d 1244, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Further, it is within the 

trial court’s discretion to disregard efforts made only shortly before termination 

and to weigh more heavily a parent’s history of conduct prior to those efforts. 

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013). “A 

pattern of unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with 

those providing social services, in conjunction with unchanged conditions, 

support a finding that there exists no reasonable probability that the conditions 

will change.” In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 210.

[21] Here, the evidence establishes that prior to commencement of the termination 

proceedings – a year into the CHINS case – Mother had done nothing to 

address her substance abuse or work toward reunification with the Children. 

She continued to use methamphetamine, sought no treatment, and went long 

periods without visiting the Children. This pattern continued even after being 

found in contempt for failing to comply with the dispositional order. After the 

termination petitions were filed in February 2018, Mother attended an initial 

evaluation for mental health and drug treatment at Stepping Stones but then she 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 10 of 13

did not follow through with treatment and was discharged by the provider. It is 

telling that the written evaluation from Stepping Stones indicates that Mother 

reported to the evaluator that she did not have a problem with drugs and that 

she had never used methamphetamine. The trial court aptly observed:

Mother’s pattern of prioritizing illegal substances over the best 

interest of her children encompasses the duration of the 

[Children’s] active CHINS cause and spans a period of nearly 

twenty (20) years, starting with her first DCS substantiation in 

the year 2000. Her actions illustrate a pattern of conduct that is 

unlikely to be remedied and provides the Court with the best 

predictor of her future behavior.

Appellant’s Appendix at 29.

[22] In the month or two leading up to the final termination hearing, Mother made 

some steps forward. She obtained employment at McDonalds and moved into 

a one-bedroom apartment, and four days before the hearing, she attended an 

intake appointment at Counseling for Change and scheduled a therapy session. 

The trial court, however, acted within its discretion by rejecting these eleventhhour efforts and focusing on Mother’s substantial history of drug use, DCS 

involvement, neglect, and lack of engagement in services. Commensurate with 

her history of poor choices and drug abuse, Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamine less than a month before the hearing (as well as fifty-eight 

other times), lived with a man previously convicted of drug dealing and 

domestic violence, and had only seen the Children once in nearly six months. 

The trial court’s determination that there is a reasonable probability that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 11 of 13

conditions that resulted in the removal of the Children will not be remedied is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.

[23] Mother also asserts, without any analysis, that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the Children’s best 

interests. In making this best-interests determination, the trial court is required 

to look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the 

evidence. In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The court must 

subordinate the interest of the parent to those of the children and need not wait 

until a child is irreversibly harmed before terminating the parent-child 

relationship. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 

185, 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Our Supreme Court has explained that 

“[p]ermanency is a central consideration in determining the best interests of a 

child.” In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1265 (Ind. 2009). “Moreover, we have 

previously held that the recommendations of the case manager and courtappointed advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that the 

conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, is sufficient to show by 

clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.” 

In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d at 236. 

[24] Here, both the CASA and FCM Austin opined that termination of Mother’s 

parental rights was in the best interests of the Children. The CASA noted 

Mother’s lack of compliance with the case plan and her history of CHINS 

cases, spanning nearly twenty years and including several of her children. The 

CASA then described how the Children, particularly C.L., have flourished in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 12 of 13

foster care, with caregivers who love them, care for them, and provide 

boundaries. FCM Austin testified that termination was in the Children’s best 

interests so that they can “move forward to find permanency in a home where 

they can thrive and live up to their full potential.” Transcript at 76. The

evidence was sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that 

termination was in the Children’s best interests.

[25] Finally, Mother challenges whether there is sufficient evidence that DCS has a 

satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the Children following 

termination. She notes that the Children are not in a pre-adoptive home and 

asserts that given her “compliance with treatment, 2 months of sobriety, and 

housing and employment situation, the children would not be harmed by 

allowing [her] additional time to prove her ability to be reunified”. Appellant’s

Brief at 13.

[26] Mother has had ample opportunity to show her commitment to reunification 

but has rather turned to drugs time and again. The Children deserve 

permanency in their lives, which Mother has been unable or unwilling to 

provide them. Although they are not in a pre-adoptive home, their current 

foster parents are willing to continue to work with them when it comes time to 

transition to a new home. The plan is for the Children to be adopted together 

through the SNAP program, and FCM Austin does not expect any obstacles in 

this regard. This is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the 

Children. See In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 268 (“[the] plan need not be detailed, so 

long as it offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1790 | January 16, 2019 Page 13 of 13

after the parent-child relationship is terminated”); see also In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 

994, 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“a plan is not unsatisfactory if DCS has not 

identified a specific family to adopt the children”), trans. denied.

[27] Judgment affirmed. 

Najam, J. and Pyle, J., concur.