Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 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 APPELLANTS

Alexander L. Hoover

Law Office of Christopher G. Walter, 

P.C.

Nappanee, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of D.B., L.B., H.B. & S.B.

(Minor Children)

and

D.J.B. (Father) and M.M.B. 

(Mother),

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

Indiana Department of Child 

Services, 

September 19, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-542

Appeal from the Starke Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kimberly Hall,

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

75C01-1808-JT-13

75C01-1808-JT-14

75C01-1808-JT-15

75C01-1808-JT-16
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 2 of 13

Appellee-Petitioner.

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] D.J.B. (“Father”) and M.M.B. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) are the 

parents of D.B., L.B., H.B., and S.B. (collectively, “the Children”). The 

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) became involved with the family after 

receiving reports of poor home conditions and the Children having poor 

hygiene. DCS initially left the Children in Parents’ care while DCS worked 

with Parents to improve the condition of the family’s home. The Children were 

determined to be children in need of services (“CHINS”) and Parents were 

ordered to complete certain services. While the CHINS proceedings were 

pending, the Children were removed from Parents’ care and placed in foster 

care after the conditions in the family’s home continued to deteriorate and DCS 

became aware of substance abuse by Parents. Parents failed to successfully 

complete the ordered services leading DCS to file petitions to terminate their

parental rights to the Children. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 3 of 13

court granted DCS’s petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights to the 

Children. On appeal, Parents contend that DCS failed to present sufficient 

evidence to support the termination of their parental rights. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] D.B. was born on February 2, 2004; L.B. was born on August 10, 2005; H.B. 

was born on February 9, 2008; and S.B. was born on July 2, 2009. DCS filed 

petitions alleging the Children to be CHINS in May of 2016, after observing 

“the Children to have poor hygiene” and poor home conditions. Ex. Vol. III, 

p. 7. As for the home conditions, on May 5, 2016, “DCS observed the family 

home to be extremely cluttered and messy with piles of clothing throughout the 

home. The home had a strong smell of animals.” Ex. Vol. III, p. 7. Mother 

admitted that the home was dirty and that she and Father needed “assistance to 

improve the conditions of the home.” Ex. Vol. II, p. 7. On June 14, 2016, 

Parents admitted that the Children were CHINS. Following a dispositional 

hearing, the juvenile court ordered Parents to: (1) maintain safe, sanitary, 

suitable, and DCS approved housing; (2) obtain and/or maintain a legal source 

of income sufficient to support all family members; (3) complete a parenting 

assessment and follow all recommendations; (4) complete a substance use 

assessment and follow all recommendations; (5) submit to random drug 

screens; (6) complete a clinical assessment and follow all recommendations; 

and (7) cooperate with DCS, the court-appointed special advocate (“CASA”), 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 4 of 13

and all service providers. The juvenile court further ordered that the Children 

were to remain placed in the family home with Parents. 

[3] The Children were removed from Parents’ home on July 29, 2016, after the 

conditions of the home deteriorated and DCS became aware of substance abuse 

by Parents. Following a February 28, 2017 periodic case review hearing, the 

juvenile court found that Parents “have partially complied” with the Children’s 

case plans. Ex. Vol. III, p. 19. Specifically, the juvenile court found that while 

Parents had visited the Children and cooperated with DCS, 

The mother is making progress in her substance abuse treatment 

but the progress is slow due to missed appointments, missed 

group sessions, a positive screen for methadone, and using 

prescription medication over the therapeutic level. The father is 

not consistent with substance abuse treatment and has failed 

approximately 7 drug screens for either marijuana, Xanax, 

cocaine or morphine. The mother and father have not 

participated in home based case work. The mother and father 

were arrested during this reporting period for an incident 

involving domestic violence between mother and father. A No

Contact Order was entered as a result of the incident.

Ex. Vol. III, p. 19. The juvenile court determined that Parents “have not 

enhanced their ability to fulfill their parental obligations.” Ex. Vol. III, p. 19. 

On June 27, 2017, the juvenile court found that (1) Parents were inconsistent in 

their participation in individual therapy and substance abuse treatment and (2) 

both had failed to maintain their sobriety and had tested positive for 

methamphetamine. Parents continued to struggle with substance abuse and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 5 of 13

their participation in services remained inconsistent throughout the CHINS 

proceedings. 

[4] On August 23, 2018, DCS filed petitions seeking the termination of Parents’ 

parental rights to the Children. The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary 

hearing on DCS’s petitions on January 7 and 9, 2019. During the evidentiary 

hearing, DCS presented evidence indicating that Parents had been unable to 

secure stable, acceptable housing and had continued to test positive for drugs. 

DCS also presented evidence indicating that the Children required stability and 

were doing well in their current placement. On February 8, 2019, the juvenile 

court issued orders terminating Parents’ parental rights to the Children.

Discussion and Decision

[5] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the 

traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. Bester v. 

Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). Although 

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

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

parental responsibilities. In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), 

trans. denied. Parental rights, therefore, are not absolute and must be 

subordinated to the best interests of the children. Id. Termination of parental 

rights is proper where the children’s emotional and physical development is 

threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until the children are
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 6 of 13

irreversibly harmed such that their physical, mental, and social development is 

permanently impaired before terminating the parent–child relationship. Id.

[6] Parents contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the termination of 

their parental rights to the Children. In reviewing termination proceedings on 

appeal, this court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the 

witnesses. In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 

874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We only consider the evidence that supports the 

juvenile court’s decision and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. 

Where, as here, the juvenile court includes findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon in its order terminating parental rights, our standard of review is twotiered. Id. First, we must determine whether the evidence supports the 

findings, and, second, whether the findings support the legal conclusions. Id. 

[7] In deference to the juvenile court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we 

set aside the juvenile court’s findings and judgment terminating a parent–child 

relationship only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding of fact is clearly 

erroneous when there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom to support it. 

Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous only if the legal conclusions made by the 

juvenile court are not supported by its findings of fact, or the conclusions do not 

support the judgment. Id.

[8] Parents claim that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to prove by clear 

and convincing evidence: 

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 7 of 13

(i) There is a reasonable probability that the 

conditions that resulted in the child[ren]’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[ren].

(iii) The child[ren have], on two (2) separate 

occasions, been adjudicated a child in need of 

services;

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

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2).

I. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B)

[9] It is well-settled that because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written 

in the disjunctive, the juvenile court need only find that one of the conditions 

listed therein has been met. See In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003), trans. denied. Therefore, where the juvenile court determines that one of 

the above-mentioned factors has been proven and there is sufficient evidence in 

the record supporting the juvenile court’s determination, it is not necessary for 

DCS to prove, or for the juvenile court to find, either of the other factors listed 

in Indiana Code section 31-34-2-4(b)(2)(B). See In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d at 882.

[10] DCS does not allege that the Children have been adjudicated CHINS on two 

separate occasions. As such, DCS had to prove either that (1) the conditions 

resulting in removal from or continued placement outside Parents’ home will 

not be remedied or (2) the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a 

threat to the Children. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 8 of 13

[11] The Children were removed from Parents’ home for two reasons: home 

conditions and substance abuse by Mother and Father. In concluding that the 

conditions leading to the Children’s removal from Parents’ home were not 

remedied, the juvenile court found that while Mother and Father presented 

evidence that they believed demonstrated that they had addressed both issues, 

the court did not believe that Parents had successfully addressed their substance 

abuse issues or that Parents would maintain their allegedly improved home 

conditions. 

[12] At the time of removal, the conditions of Parents’ home were atrocious and 

barely livable. Since removal, Mother has resided in eight different residences

and Father has resided in at least four different residences. Parents have been 

evicted from at least two of these residences for failure to pay rent. At the time 

of the evidentiary hearing, Parents presented pictures to show that their current 

home conditions were appropriate. However, neither DCS Family Case 

Manager (“FCM”) Kara Crippen nor the Children’s CASA have been able to 

verify the conditions of the home. The juvenile court noted that while the 

pictures presented by Mother appear to show appropriate living conditions, the 

court was not convinced, given Parents’ history of instability, that Parents 

would be able to maintain the conditions of the home. 

[13] The evidence also establishes that Parents have a long history of substance 

abuse. At the time of removal, Mother was abusing her prescription medication 

and Father was taking certain unprescribed medications and cocaine. Mother 

and Father completed random drug screens from May of 2016 through July of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 9 of 13

2018. During this period, Father tested positive, without having valid 

prescriptions, eight times for amphetamine, eight times for methadone, four 

times for morphine, and three times for benzodiazepine. Father also tested 

positive four times for THC, four times for oxycodone, twice for 

methamphetamine, and once for fentanyl. Each of Father’s positive tests for 

oxycodone revealed fatal levels of the drug in Father’s system, leading the 

toxicology lab to request a welfare check. Mother tested positive, without 

having valid prescriptions, two times for hydrocodone, two times for 

benzodiazepine, two times for suboxone, and one time for methadone. Mother 

also tested positive five times for oxycodone and once for methamphetamine. 

In addition, Mother failed to consistently take her prescription medication and 

Parents each refused at least one drug screen despite claiming to be sober. 

[14] Parents’ substance abuse assessments revealed a high probability that each was 

suffering from a substance abuse disorder. The assessments indicated that 

educational courses would not adequately address Parents’ issues and that 

Parents would require addictions therapy and exposure to appropriate 

community support groups. Mother’s assessment also noted that Mother 

suffered from considerable emotional pain and found that Mother would need a 

more comprehensive mental status evaluation. While Mother made some 

progress in treatment, Father did not. During group sessions, Father was 

combative, blamed DCS for everything, and did not take accountability for his 

actions. Father also provided various excuses for his failure to consistently 

attend treatment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 10 of 13

[15] The juvenile court found that Parents suffer from both a physical and 

psychological addition. Mother also suffers from mental illness, including 

bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. She also suffers from social anxiety, 

low self-esteem, and struggles without Father. Father, however, did not come 

across as supportive of Mother. Rather, he would belittle and attempt to 

control her. Mother does not have additional family support and, at the time of 

the evidentiary hearing, was not attending therapy, NA/AA meetings, or 

support groups. She was not seeing a doctor or taking any medication for her 

mental health. Father was also not attending therapy, NA/AA meetings, or 

support groups. 

[16] The juvenile court found that Parents were not addressing their addiction or 

mental health needs and that Parents are co-dependent and unable to succeed 

without professional help. The juvenile court agreed with the service providers 

that Parents were provided numerous services and multiple attempts at 

reunification and there was nothing more that could have been provided.

[17] Parents do not challenge any of the juvenile court’s findings, all of which are 

supported by the record. Instead, they argue that the juvenile court should not 

have considered their substance abuse issues as that was not a reason for the 

Children’s removal from their home. Contrary to Parents’ argument, however, 

the record clearly indicates that the Children were removed from Parents’ home

due to concerns about both the conditions of the home and substance abuse by 

Parents. Further, while Parents argue that they have made progress, they have 

yet to progress to the point where service providers were confident that they 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 11 of 13

could adequately care for the Children. Given the significant evidence 

outlining Parents’ continued struggles with maintaining adequate housing and 

substance abuse issues, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove that 

they are unlikely to remedy the conditions that led to the Children’s removal 

from their home. Parents’ claim to the contrary amounts to an invitation for 

this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See In re S.P.H., 806 

N.E.2d at 879.

II. Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(B)(2)(C)

[18] We are mindful that in considering whether termination of parental rights is in 

the best interests of a child, the juvenile court is required to look beyond the 

factors identified by DCS and look to the totality of the evidence. McBride v. 

Monroe Cty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003). In doing so, the juvenile court must subordinate the interests of the 

parents to those of the children involved. Id. “A parent’s historical inability to 

provide a suitable environment along with the parent’s current inability to do 

the same supports a finding that termination of parental rights is in the best 

interests of the children.” Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family & Children, 861 

N.E.2d 366, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Furthermore, this court has previously 

determined that the testimony of the case worker, guardian ad litem (“GAL”), 

or a CASA regarding a child’s need for permanency supports a finding that 

termination is in the child’s best interests. Id. at 374; see also Matter of M.B., 666 

N.E.2d 73, 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 12 of 13

[19] With respect to the best interests of the Children, the juvenile court found as 

follows: 

The Court finds that DCS has shown by clear and convincing 

evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interest 

of [the Children]. Mother and Father love their children; 

however, this matter is about the best interest of the Child[ren], 

not the parents. The Child[ren] have been out of the home for 

nearly 30 months, which is an extremely long time in the 

perspective of the Child[ren]. When the children were removed, 

they were disrespectful, had boundary problems, and were rude 

and violent to each other during visits.... The children were 

argumentative and would not follow directions in the foster 

home when they had visitation with Mother and Father. 

Visitation was not consistent due to Mother and Father’s 

inability to maintain sobriety. The back and forth with visitation 

was hard on the children....

The children have lived a life in limbo. The children need 

stability and structure. They do not need any more uncertainty. 

Mother and Father are unable to provide a home environment 

that the Child[ren] require[] to thrive. [A service provided 

testified that she] believes the children started thriving in the last 

6 months, which correlates with no visitations with Mother and 

Father. The children love Mother and Father, but they cannot 

wait indefinitely for their parents to work toward reunification. 

DCS, CASA and this Court believe that termination of parental 

rights is in the best interest of [the Children].

Appellants’ App. Vol. II pp. 96–97.1

 

1

 We quote the findings issued in the juvenile court’s order relating to D.B. The trial court’s findings relating 

to the likelihood that the conditions would not be remedied are essentially the same for each of the Children.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-542 | September 19, 2019 Page 13 of 13

[20] The juvenile court’s findings are supported by the record. FCM Crippen 

testified that she believed that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in the 

best interests of the Children. In addition, Reverend Anthony Spanley, the 

Children’s CASA, also testified that he believed that termination of Parents’ 

parental rights was in the best interests of the Children, adding that he had 

“seen no stability in the parents ... as far as being able to stay off drugs and 

maintain housing.” Tr. p. 222. The testimony of FCM Crippen and Rev. 

Spanley is sufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s findings regarding the best 

interests of the Children.

[21] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.