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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

LINDA L. HARRIS ROBERT J. HENKE

Kentland, Indiana Indiana Department of Child Services

Indianapolis, IN 

LINDA KAMPE HOUTZ

Indiana Department of Child Services

Fowler, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT )

CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF J.M., M.M., A.M. )

AND S.M.: )

)

R.M. & H.M., )

)

Appellant-Respondent, )

)

vs. ) No. 04A03-1204-JT-184

)

THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

CHILD SERVICES, )

)

Appellee-Petitioner. )

APPEAL FROM THE BENTON CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Rex W. Kepner, Judge 

Cause No. 04C01-1110-JT-102 thru 109

December 20, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PYLE, Judge
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

H.M. (“Father”) and R.M. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the 

involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship with their children, J.M., M.M., 

A.M., and S.M. (collectively “the children”).

We affirm.

ISSUE

Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support the 

termination of Parents’ parent-child relationship with J.M., M.M., A.M., 

and S.M.

FACTS

Parents were married in 2005 after having raised their biological children from

previous relationships. They became licensed foster parents in 2006. In 2007, Parents 

became foster parents to L.M. and Je.M., who are not part of this appeal, and 

subsequently adopted both boys. During 2007 and 2008, Parents became foster parents 

to J.M., born in 2004, M.M., born in 2006, A.M., born in 2007, and S.M., born in 2008,

and subsequently adopted all four children. 

L.M. and Je.M. were removed from Parents’ care in December 2009 because of 

Parents’ inappropriate use of discipline. Specifically, there was a report that Mother 

burned L.M.’s hand on the stove. Both boys were adjudicated to be children in need of 

services (“CHINS”), and the Benton County Department of Child Services (“DCS”)

offered services to Parents, including family preservation and visitation.
3

In July 2010, during the course of the CHINS proceedings for L.M. and Je.M., a 

case manager went to Parents’ home and discovered an unhealthy living environment for 

the remaining four children. Specifically, the case manager found dried feces on the wall 

in J.M. and A.M.’s bedroom. The case manager further found broken toys in the toy 

room with sharp edges exposed; clutter stacked throughout the house; paint cans, bleach,

knives, and electrical cords within the children’s reach; dried blood on pillows in one of 

the children’s bedrooms; and no sheets on any of the beds. Parents had eleven dogs, and 

there were feces in the toy room around the toys. Mother admitted that she locked the 

children in their bedrooms at night without access to a bathroom. 

The children were adjudicated CHINS in November 2010, based on Parents’ 

admissions. Following a dispositional hearing, Parents were ordered to attend supervised 

visitation with children, help visitation facilitators develop a behavior modification plan 

for the children, and use the plan during visitation. In addition, Parents were ordered to 

refrain from using physical force or restraint against the children unless there was a life 

or health endangering situation. During the pendency of the proceedings, DCS filed a 

Termination Petition in the case of L.M. and Je.M. Parents admitted the allegations in 

the petition and the trial court issued an order terminating their parental rights to L.M. 

and Je.M. 

In October 2011, DCS filed a petition to terminate Parent’s parental relationship 

with J.M., A.M., M.M., and S.M. The evidence at the termination hearing revealed that 

Mother suffers from a major depressive disorder as well as an adjustment disorder. She 
4

is physically disabled by degenerative disc disease and also suffers from fibromyalgia. A 

parenting assessment revealed that Mother is at a high risk for child neglect. Father tends 

to distance himself from a relationship with the children. Six-year-old J.M. suffers from 

attention deficit and hyper-activity disorder as well as bipolar disorder. He picks his skin 

until it bleeds and bangs his head on the floor. His anger issues are exacerbated by 

environmental situations. Four-year-old A.M. suffers from adjustment disorder, reactive 

attachment disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. He bites and hits others, urinates 

throughout the house, and exhibits eroticized inappropriate touching of himself and 

others. One-year-old S.M. has speech and motor delays.

After Parents cleaned up their house, supervised visitation with the four children 

took place there. During the course of two years, seven visitation facilitators supervised 

Parents’ visits with the four children. All seven facilitators had concerns about the safety 

of the children and Parents’ ability to properly discipline them. For example, the children 

were physically violent with one another without parental intervention. A.M. twice 

attempted to choke two of his siblings. He also threw objects at Mother and injured her 

severely enough on one occasion that she needed to seek medical attention. The 

children’s behavior also caused Mother to suffer a panic attack that resulted in her going 

to the hospital. During one visit, Mother sat on the floor and cried. She asked A.M. why 

he was so mean to her. The children played on or around the stove top and stood on 

barstools without parental intervention. 
5

Inappropriate objects such as tools and a power drill were repeatedly left where 

the children could and did access them. The children grabbed and ingested items off the 

counter, including coffee cream and hot sauce that led to vomiting. Mother had to be 

prompted by a facilitator to give A.M. a breathing treatment while he was having an 

asthma attack. Mother also had to be prompted to change the younger children’s soiled 

diapers and engage them in the process of toilet training and to praise or compliment the 

children on their good behavior. Both parents used inappropriate physical force to 

discipline the children and yelled and cursed at them. Father was physically aggressive 

with them.

At the termination hearing, testimony from all service providers revealed that the 

parents have exhausted all available assistance and would not benefit from further 

services. Danielle Menefee, the DCS family case manager, testified that she believes the 

children’s safety is in jeopardy because of Parents’ continued lack of supervision and 

discipline. She further explained that Parents’ inability to implement consistent parenting 

skills posed a danger to the children and their behavior would only get worse. The 

Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) testified that termination is in the children’s best interests 

because Parents have not made the necessary improvements in their supervision, 

discipline, and parenting skills to meet their children’s basic needs. According to the 

GAL, Parents were too quick to anger and too slow to respond to safety concerns, and it 

concerned him to think what could happen to the children if the visitation facilitators 

were not present. 
6

The children have been in foster care since they were removed from Parents, and 

their behavior with the foster parents has improved over the two years. A.M. is no longer 

urinating in inappropriate places, smearing feces on the walls, or hiding food. S.M.’s 

motor skills have improved, and J.M. has fewer discipline problems at school. The foster 

parents are interested in adopting all four children.

Following the four-day hearing, the trial court issued an order terminating Parents’ 

parental rights. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the continuation of the parentchild relationship posed a threat to the children’s well-being because Parents were not 

able to provide the structure and supervision the children need to remain safe. Parents 

were also not able to provide the routine and consistency necessary to address the 

children’s behavioral issues, and they failed to notice and remedy safety hazards to the 

children. Parents appeal the termination. 

DECISION

The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish parents but to protect 

their children. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

Although parental rights are of a constitutional dimension, the law allows for the 

termination of those rights when parties are unable or unwilling to meet their 

responsibility as parents. Id.

The juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the 

child when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the termination. In re R.S., 774 
7

N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Termination of the parent-child 

relationship is proper where the child’s emotional and physical development is 

threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until the child is irreversibly harmed 

before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id.

Parents argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of their 

parental rights. This court will not set aside the trial court’s judgment terminating a 

parent-child relationship unless the judgment is clearly erroneous. Id. at 929-30. When 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary termination of a 

parent-child relationship, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the 

witnesses. Id. at 930. We consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the 

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. 

Indiana Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) sets out the following relevant elements that DCS 

must allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence in order to terminate a parentchild relationship:

When DCS seeks to terminate parental rights, it must plead and prove, in relevant 

part:

(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.
8

(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).1These allegations must be established by clear and 

convincing evidence. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 2010). If the trial court 

finds the allegations in a petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court 

shall terminate the parent-child relationship. I.C. § 31–35–2–8(a).

Parents’ sole argument is that that the DCS failed to prove that there was a 

reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat 

to the well-being of the children. The trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care 

for his or her child at the time of the termination hearing, taking into consideration 

evidence of changed conditions. In re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), 

trans. denied.. However, a parent’s habitual patterns of conduct must also be considered 

to determine whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. 

Id. A trial court does not need to wait until a child is irreversibly influenced by a 

deficient lifestyle such that his or her physical, mental, and social growth is permanently 

impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Castro v. Ind. Office of Family 

& Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. When the 

evidence shows that the emotional and physical development of a child is threatened, 

termination of parental rights is appropriate. Id. 

 

1

Indiana Code § 31–35–2–4 was amended by Public Law No. 48–2012 (effective July 1, 2012). The 

changes to the statute became effective after the filing of the termination petition involved herein and are 

not applicable to this case.
9

Here, our review of the evidence reveals the children suffer from delays and 

disorders that require parental supervision and discipline. Mother is physically disabled 

and suffers from a major depressive disorder. Father is physically aggressive with the 

children and tends to distance himself from a relationship with them. After two years of 

supervised visitation and the provision of services, the service providers all agree that 

both parents have exhausted all available assistance and would not benefit from 

additional services. The service providers also agree that the children’s safety is in 

jeopardy when the children are with Parents and that a continuation of the parent-child 

relationship poses a threat to the well-being of the children. This evidence supports the 

termination of Parents’ parent-child relationship with J.M., M.M., A.M., and S.M. 

We reverse a termination of parental rights “only upon a showing of ‘clear error’ 

— that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

made.” Egly v. Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 

1992). We find no such error here and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

Affirmed.

ROBB, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.