Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 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

Cynthia Phillips Smith

Law Office of Cynthia P. Smith

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine A. Cornelius

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of T.A.B., Jr., Z.B., C.L., and 

D.S.L. (Children) and A.L. 

(Mother);

A.L. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

December 23, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-1419

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Faith A. Graham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D03-1809-JT-128

79D03-1809-JT-130

79D03-1809-JT-131

79D03-1809-JT-132
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 2 of 17

May, Judge.

[1] A.L. (“Mother”) appeals the involuntary termination of her parental rights to 

T.A.B. Jr.; Z.B.; C.L.; and D.S.L. (collectively, “Children”). She raises three 

issues, and we address two of them:

1

1. Whether the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that 

the conditions under which Children were removed from her 

care would not be remedied; and

2. Whether the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that 

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

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother gave birth to T.A.B. Jr. on June 12, 2011; Z.B. on July 24, 2012; C.L. 

on February 10, 2015; and D.S.L. on May 29, 2016.2

 On May 31, 2016, the 

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report that Mother tested 

positive for marijuana during delivery of D.S.L. and that D.S.L.’s umbilical 

1 Mother also alleges the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that the continuation of the 

Mother-Child relationships posed a threat to Children’s well-being. Because we hold the trial court’s findings 

supported its conclusion that the conditions under which Children was removed from Mother’s care would 

be not be remedied, we need not consider Mother’s argument regarding whether the continuation of the 

parent-children relationship poses a risk to Children’s well-being. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1999) (because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) written in the disjunctive, court needs find only 

one requirement to terminate parental rights), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1161 (2002). 

2 T.A.B. Sr. (“Father”) is the father of Children. His parental rights were also terminated, but he does not 

participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 3 of 17

cord tested positive for marijuana. Mother again tested positive for marijuana 

on June 14, 2016. DCS attempted to engage the family in an Informal 

Adjustment (“IA”), but the IA was unsuccessful because Mother and Father did 

not engage in services and could not be contacted by DCS.

[3] On July 20, 2016, DCS visited the family home while Father was at work.

Mother reported she wanted to leave Father because he choked her and threw 

her into a corner. Mother and Children relocated to a shelter, and DCS helped 

Mother create a safety plan, in which Mother agreed to separate from Father, 

not allow Father around Children, not have contact with Father, and not tell 

Father where Mother and Children were staying. On July 22, 2016, DCS filed 

a petition alleging Children were Children in Need of Services (CHINS). 

Children remained in Mother’s care. At the detention hearing and initial 

hearing held on July 22, 2016, the trial court ordered Father to vacate the 

family home.

[4] On September 9, 2016, DCS filed a request to remove Children from Mother’s 

care because Mother was not progressing in services, was not properly 

supervising Children, was using drugs, and did not have employment or 

housing. At a detention hearing on September 13, Mother agreed to the 

removal of Children because she was unable to provide for their basic 

necessities at that time. Children were placed in foster care. The trial court 

adjudicated Children as CHINS on September 27, 2016.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 4 of 17

[5] The trial court entered its dispositional order as to Mother on October 18, 2016, 

requiring Mother to participate in “home based case management, mental 

health assessment, substance abuse assessment, random drug screens, and 

parenting time.” (App. Vol. II at 41.) Children were returned to Mother’s care 

on October 2, 2017, for a “trial home visit.” (Id.) Children remained with 

Mother until May 29, 2018, when Mother relapsed into marijuana use and 

Children tested positive for cocaine. During the trial home visit, Children’s 

foster parents provided Mother and Father3 with respite care because Mother 

became “overwhelmed” by the situation. (Id. at 46.) Children were returned to 

the care of their foster parents after removal from Mother’s care, where they 

have remained for the pendency of this case.

[6] Mother’s compliance with services declined, she continued to use marijuana,

she did not have stable housing and employment, and she was often involved in 

physical altercations with Father and other people. On October 17, 2018, DCS 

filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to 

Children. The trial court held hearings on the matter on January 3, 2019, and 

February 12, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the trial court entered its order 

involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children.

Discussion and Decision

3 At some point in time, Father returned to the family home. It is unclear from the record under what 

circumstances this change in status occurred.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 5 of 17

[7] We review termination of parental rights with great deference. In re K.S., 750 

N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We will not reweigh evidence or judge 

credibility of witnesses. 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 

most favorable to the judgment. Id. In deference to the juvenile court’s unique 

position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a 

parent’s rights only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1161 (2002). 

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

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In 

re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. A trial court must 

subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children when evaluating 

the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d at 837. 

The right to raise one’s own children should not be terminated solely because 

there is a better home available for the children, id., but parental rights may be 

terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet parental 

responsibilities. Id. at 836.

[9] To terminate a parent-child relationship, the State must allege and prove:

(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 6 of 17

(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). The State must provide clear and convincing proof 

of these allegations. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009), reh’g 

denied. If the court finds the allegations in the petition are true, it must 

terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8. 

[10] When, as here, a judgment contains specific findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of 

Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). We determine whether the 

evidence supports the findings and 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 juvenile court’s 

decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208. 

[11] Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings, and thus we accept them as 

true. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992) (“Because Madlem 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 7 of 17

does not challenge the findings of the trial court, they must be accepted as 

correct.”). Mother challenges the trial court’s conclusions that the conditions 

under which Children were removed were not likely to be remedied and that 

termination is in Children’s best interests. 

1. Conditions Would Not Be Remedied

[12] A trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child at the time of the 

termination hearing. In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

Evidence of a parent’s pattern of unwillingness or lack of commitment to 

address parenting issues and to cooperate with services “demonstrates the 

requisite reasonable probability” that conditions will not change. Lang v. Starke 

Cty. OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 

[13] Regarding the conditions under which Children were removed from Mother’s 

care and whether there was a reasonable probability those conditions would not 

be remedied, the trial court found:

2. [DCS] received a report on May 31, 2016 alleging that 

[Mother] tested positive for marijuana when admitted to the 

hospital after the birth of [D.S.L.] and that Mother had not 

received prenatal care.

3. Investigation revealed that Mother tested positive for 

marijuana on May 29, 2016 and that [D.S.L.] also tested positive 

for marijuana at birth through umbilical cord blood testing. 

Mother tested positive for marijuana again on June 14, 2016. 

DCS attempted to implement a Program of Informal Adjustment 

(“IA”) with the family to address these concerns. However, the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 8 of 17

IA was not successful. The parents did not begin services and 

DCS was unable to contact the parents for several weeks.

4. On July 20, 2016, DCS visited the home while [Father] was at 

work. Mother disclosed that Father choked her and threw her in 

a corner. Mother indicated that she wanted to leave the 

relationship as it was not safe for her or the children. Mother 

and the children went to a shelter. Mother signed a safety plan 

on July 21, 2016 that she would separate from Father, not allow 

Father around the children, not have contact with Father, and 

not allow Father to know where Mother was staying.

* * * * *

6. On September 9, 2016, DCS filed a request to remove the 

children from Mother’s care due to Mother’s lack of progress in 

services, issues with supervision of the children, inability to 

provide basic necessities, drug and alcohol use, and lack of 

employment and housing. [D.S.L.] had been found face down 

on a bed when Mother was not in the room. On a different 

occasion, [M]other was unaware when the stroller with a child in 

it rolled into the street. [D.S.L.] and [C.L.] tested positive for 

marijuana on a hair screen collected August 31, 2016. Mother 

and the children were staying at a shelter which Mother had to 

exit by September 12, 2016. Mother had no plan for housing 

thereafter and no plan to keep the children safe. . . . 

* * * * *

10. Mother completed a substance abuse assessment in October 

of 2016. Mother denied smoking marijuana while the children 

were present but admitted using while the children were sleeping. 

Mother reported smoking marijuana about three (3) to four (4) 

times a month to relax and escape. Mother denied such use 

affected her ability to care for the children. Mother reported a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 9 of 17

history of domestic violence with Father and indicated that 

domestic violence was the catalyst for wanting to escape. It was 

recommended that Mother complete an Intensive Outpatient 

Program (IOP), submit to random drug screens, and attend 

support groups. Mother expressed an interest in treatment and 

individual counseling to address trauma that might lead to 

substance abuse.

11. Mother started substance abuse treatment through Living in 

Balance (LIB), which is an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), 

in January of 2017. Mother did not complete the three (3) 

months of intensive sessions due to absences. Mother returned to 

the LIB program in March of 2017 and completed the intensive 

portion. Mother planned to start the aftercare program but did 

not do so until September of 2017. Mother failed to attend 

support groups before starting the aftercare program. After 

relapsing, Mother was again referred to LIB in June of 2018 and 

was provided a recovery coach to assist with her sobriety. 

Mother attended one (1) session of LIB then did not return until 

December of 2018. Mother has since failed to attend 

consistently. Mother’s recovery coach terminated services for 

lack of engagement.

12. Mother continued to test positive for marijuana on a 

consistent basis from the beginning of the case until Spring of 

2017. Mother maintained sobriety until April of 2018, shortly 

before the trial home visit ended. Since that time, Mother has 

not produced a clean drug screen and has failed to submit to 

many drug screens.

13. Mother completed a mental health assessment in January of 

2017. Mother was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder 

and it was recommended that Mother participate in individual 

therapy. Mother initially worked diligently in therapy and made 

progress during sessions she attended. Mother failed to attend 

any sessions in April, June and July of 2017. Service providers 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 10 of 17

noted that Mother’s untreated depression often made motivation 

difficult. Additionally, Mother was stressed and overwhelmed 

during the trial home visit. Therapy was court ordered again 

after continued domestic violence and a new referral was made in 

August of 2018. Mother was discharged after she failed to 

schedule any appointments. Another referral was placed in 

November of 2018. Mother only attended one (1) session in late 

January or early February of 2019. Mother does not believe 

therapy is necessary and denies any mental health issues or 

current struggles with depression.

14. In addition to case management, Mother was provided 

Homebuilders intensive home-based services on two (2) 

occasions. The first referral was on July 23, 2016 after Mother 

left Father’s home and moved to a domestic violence shelter. 

Homebuilders worked with [M]other over ten (10) hours per 

week to assist with obtaining information and completing 

applications for housing, applying for an order of protection 

against Father, applying for employment, working towards her 

GED, and working on coping skills. Homebuilders also assisted 

[M]other with applying for WIC, food stamps, TANF, child care 

vouchers, and Headstart. The second referral was on November 

30, 2017 to assist with providing a safe environment for the 

children, increasing parenting skills, finding stable housing, 

childcare, safe sleep, employment, and co-parenting. [sic].

Mother had reported multiple incidents of domestic violence and 

stated she could no longer live in the home with Father. 

Homebuilders helped relocate Mother and the children to the 

domestic violence shelter on December 4, 2017. Homebuilders 

indicated that Mother was very motivated and recommended 

step-down services to home-based case management.

15. Mother participated in home-based case management to 

assist with housing, employment, parenting education, safe sleep 

practices, and other issues. At times, Mother participated well 

and was motivated to make progress. At other times, Mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 11 of 17

failed to participate consistently and was discharged from 

providers. The most recent referral was made in December of 

2018, but Mother has only attended one (1) session. Mother was 

not able to sustain any progress made during periods of 

participation.

16. Despite services provided, Mother failed to establish a stable 

means of providing for the children. Throughout most of the 

CHINS case, Mother was unemployed. Whenever Mother did 

obtain employment, she did not maintain any job for more than a 

few months at a time and remained financially dependent upon 

Father. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had been 

employed for approximately one (1) week.

17. Mother also failed to establish a safe and stable home for the 

children. When the CHINS case began, Mother and Father were 

residing together with the children and Father was supporting the 

household. Due to domestic violence, Mother and the children 

moved to a shelter in July of 2016 and remined there until 

September of 2016. Mother was homeless for a while, then began 

residing with Father again in January of 2017. Mother remained 

in a home with Father until the children were placed back in the 

home for a trial home visit in October of 2017. After a domestic 

violence incident in December of 2017, Mother left Father and 

again moved to a domestic violence shelter. Mother and the 

children remained at the shelter until Mother obtained an 

apartment on March 30, 2018. Mother left the apartment in 

October of 2018 and has since been staying with various friends 

and family.

18. Even when Mother had her own housing, it was not safe. 

Father continued to cause issues, including holding Mother at 

knife point. On September 6, 2018, police were called to the 

home after Mother’s friend made sexual advances toward her 

then got upset and punched her in the face. Mother required 

stitches in her mouth as a result. On October 14, 2018, [M]other 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 12 of 17

had an altercation at her home with two (2) people who 

reportedly thought she had something in her house and it was a 

“robbery gone bad.” Mother stated her house was destroyed and 

they stole a gun she obtained after an earlier incident with 

Father.

19. On June 14, 2017, Mother gave birth to her fifth child with 

Father and the baby’s cord blood tested positive for alcohol. The 

fifth child was not removed from parents until May of 2018 when 

the other children tested positive for marijuana and cocaine 

during the trial home visit. The fifth child is not a subject of this 

termination proceeding.

20. Mother has generally done well during parenting time. It 

was noted that Mother provided attention to each of the children 

and she was prepared for the visits. There were no safety 

concerns during Mother’s visits. In April of 2017, parenting time 

was combined for Mother and Father since they had resumed 

their relationship and were living together. It was noted that 

there was tension between the parents and that Father would 

leave during the visits. In May of 2017, parents’ visits moved 

into the home, then in June of 2017, parents’ visits progressed to 

semi-supervised. On October 2, 2017, a trial home visit started 

with both parents. During drop ins, service providers noted 

concerns with unsafe sleeping for the baby, lack of supervision, 

lighters within reach of the children, food left around the house, 

and deteriorating home conditions. Providers spoke with 

[M]other and Father multiples times about these issues, but the 

problems continued. It was also noted that Mother felt 

overwhelmed because Father was not helping and there was 

frequent fighting between the parents. Mother admitted she 

physically attacked Father when she discovered that Father had a 

girlfriend. Mother also indicated she did not feel the home was 

safe for the children. Mother and the children moved to a 

domestic violence shelter in early December of 2017. Mother 

was overwhelmed as she and the five (5) children lived in one (1) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 13 of 17

room while at the shelter. Mother also left the children with 

unapproved individuals at the shelter.

21. When Mother and the children moved into an apartment, 

there continued to be issues of unapproved people in the home 

with the children and Mother being overwhelmed with the care 

of the children and lack of support. Despite domestic violence 

issues, Father was often observed in the home. Mother indicated 

that Father was causing her stress and she had difficulty getting 

him to leave. On May 22, 2018, Mother called law enforcement 

as Father refused to leave her home. Additionally, Mother 

relapsed and tested positive for marijuana on April 9 and 17, 

2018. Mother often failed to call the drug screen line and missed 

drug screens on April 12, April 30, May 7, and May 15 of 2018. 

The children were drug screened and all four children tested 

positive for cocaine. [D.S.L.] and [C.L.] also tested positive for 

marijuana. This was the second time for [C.L.] to test positive 

for marijuana and the third time for [D.S.L.] to test positive. 

Neither parent could explain why the children tested positive for 

cocaine. Mother initially blamed father but later stated that this 

was a lie. Mother now believes that children were exposed in the 

shelter and testified that a woman who cared for the children had 

a crack pipe. Mother fails to acknowledge that she was 

responsible for making sure the children were safe and not 

exposed to drugs. The children were removed from parents 

again on May 29, 2018.

22. After the trial visit ended, Mother struggled to consistently 

attend scheduled parenting time sessions. When Mother did 

attend, she arrived on time, was prepared with supplies, and 

engaged with the children. After a violent episode with Father 

on August 24, 2018 during which Father took Mother’s phone, 

Mother failed to attend visits for three (3) months. Mother 

resumed parenting time in November 2018 but continued to miss 

visits which remained fully supervised. Parenting education was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 14 of 17

recommended to help Mother understand the emotions and 

trauma experienced by the children.

* * * * *

37. Both parents love the children, but neither can provide the 

children with a safe and stable home that is free of domestic 

violence and substance abuse. Although services have been 

offered since July of 2016, the parents continue to struggle with 

the same issues that caused removal of the children: 

homelessness, lack of steady employment, substance abuse and 

domestic violence. Neither parent has produced a clean drug 

screen since the trial home visit ended. Mother still believes 

marijuana use is not an issue despite her children testing positive 

for marijuana multiple times. Domestic violence continues 

between the parents. Father held Mother at knife point as 

recently as August of 2018. Although there were periods when 

the parents would actively engage in services, neither was able to 

sustain any progress made towards reunification due to the 

unresolved issues of substance abuse and domestic violence.

(App. Vol. II at 40-6.)

[14] Mother contends the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that 

there was a reasonable probability that the conditions under which Children 

were removed from her care would not be remedied because she completed 

most services offered to her and had improved her situation since Children were 

removed from her care. While we acknowledge Mother’s periods of progress, 

we cannot ignore her inconsistent compliance with services. Therefore, we 

hold the findings do support the trial court’s conclusion that there was a 

reasonable probability that the conditions under which the children were 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 15 of 17

removed would not be remedied. See In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 

2013) (mother’s recent sobriety outweighed by her history of substance abuse 

and neglect of her children). 

2. Children’s Best Interests

[15] In determining what is in Children’s best interests, a trial court is required to 

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

evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. dismissed. 

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

parent’s current inability to do so, supports finding termination of parental 

rights is in the best interests of the child. In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 990 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The recommendations of a DCS case manager and courtappointed advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that 

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

clear and convincing evidence that termination is in Children’s best interests. In 

re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

[16] Regarding Children’s best interests, the trial court found:

34. Services have also been provided to [Children]. [T.B.] was 

diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and participated in 

therapy. [T.B.] witnessed domestic violence, worried about 

everything, reported difficulty sleeping, and displayed 

aggressiveness during visits. [Z.B.] was diagnosed with 

Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and participated in therapy. 

Witnessing domestic violence and substance abuse and living in a 

shelter were very traumatic for [Z.B.] but she has stabilized. 

[C.L.] received speech therapy but was discharged during the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 16 of 17

trial home visit due to missed appointments. [C.L.] has resumed 

speech therapy. [D.L.] completed a First Steps evaluation and 

receives services for speech delays and anger management.

35. [Children] are doing well in foster care. During the trial 

home visit, the foster parents provided support to Mother and 

Father by taking [Children] on occasion to provide respite for the 

parents. When the trial home visit ended, [Children] returned to 

the same foster parents who are willing adopt. [Children] are 

otherwise adoptable.

36. CASA Staff Advocate, Leigh Ann Fricke, supports 

termination of parental rights and adoption in the best interests of 

[Children]. During the trial home visit, CASA was concerned 

with the deteriorating conditions of the home, ongoing domestic 

violence, and Mother being overwhelmed. After Mother left the 

shelter and obtained an apartment, CASA was again concerned 

about the events occurring the home as Mother was 

overwhelmed and both parents relapsed into marijuana [use]. 

CASA notes the relationship between Mother and Father is not 

stable. [Children] have now been in the system for over nine 

hundred (900) days. CASA believes [Children] need and deserve 

permanency.

(App. Vol. II at 46.)

[17] Mother argues these findings do not support the trial court’s conclusion that 

termination of her parental rights is in Children’s best interests because they do 

not take into account Mother’s bond with her Children. She contends “[t]o 

terminate this bond based upon an alleged lack of housing, a one-time cocaine 

positive test for children, and alleged sporadic marijuana use by Mother is not 

in the children’s best interests.” (Br. of Appellant at 21-2.) However, the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1419 |December 23, 2019 Page 17 of 17

court’s findings note multiple instances of Mother’s drug use, her housing and 

employment instability, and domestic violence in the home. The findings 

demonstrate mother’s drug use and homelessness are persistent problems. Over 

the three years this matter has been pending, Mother has not fully engaged in 

services and has failed to participate in visitation with Children for extended 

periods of time. Children are receiving consistent care with foster parents, who 

also ensure Children’s trauma is properly treated. Thus, we hold the trial 

court’s findings support its conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental 

rights is in Children’s best interests. See In re A.P., 991 N.E.2d 75, 83 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012) (despite mother’s bond with children, termination was in children’s 

best interests based on mother’s continued drug use and noncompliance with 

services).

Conclusion

[18] The trial court’s findings support its conclusions that the conditions under 

which Children were removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied and 

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

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

[19] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.