Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 1 of 18

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

Jeremy K. Nix

Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, L.L.P. 

Huntington, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

James D. Boyer

Deputy Attorneys 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.C., G.C., & S.C., Minor 

Children,

A.C., Mother, and D.C., Father,

Appellants-Respondents,

v.

The Indiana Department of Child 

Services, 

Appellee-Petitioner.

February 27, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

90A02-1408-JT-599

Appeal from the Wells Circuit Court

The Honorable Kenton W. Kiracofe, 

Judge

Cause Nos: 90C01-1401-JT-2; 

90C01-1401-JT-3; 90C01-1401-JT-4

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 2 of 18

[1] A.C. (“Mother”) and D.C. (“Father,” and together with Mother, “Parents”) 

appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights with respect to their 

children, S.C., G.C., and D.C. (collectively, the “Children”). Parents raise one 

issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court’s findings support 

the court’s decision to terminate their parental rights. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Parents are an unmarried couple who have been together for eleven years, and 

have struggled with methamphetamine use for many years. Their Children, 

D.C. and G.C., were born on May 14, 2003, and S.C. was born on January 18, 

2007. D.C. and G.C. have cerebral palsy and require extensive, specialized 

medical care. On September 6, 2012, the Children and Parents were present at 

Parents’ home when the back porch area of their residence caught fire. The 

Children were removed from the care of Parents by the Department of Child 

Service (“DCS”), after a determination by the fire inspector that items in the 

house were a drug lab. 

[3] On December 7, 2012, the court entered an order adjudicating each of the 

Children as a child in need of services (“CHINS”). The order noted in part that 

Parents admitted the Children were CHINS, that police had found items 

commonly used to cook methamphetamine at Parents’ house following the

house fire, that D.C. and G.C. have cerebral palsy, and that in February of 2010 

Parents had been investigated for medical neglect of D.C. and G.C. because 

they had not received medical treatment for two years. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 3 of 18

[4] Mother agreed to plead guilty in January 2013 to possession of 

methamphetamine as a class D felony and three counts of neglect of a 

dependent as class C felonies. She received a sentence of four years with two 

years suspended and probation, and she was released from incarceration in 

November 2013. Father agreed to plead guilty in February 2013 to dealing in 

methamphetamine as a class B felony and three counts of neglect of a 

dependent as class C felonies. He was sentenced to ten years with five years 

suspended, his earliest release date is May 14, 2015, and his term of 

incarceration can be reduced if he completes inpatient drug treatment. 

[5] On January 31, 2014, DCS filed petitions for the involuntary termination of the 

parent-child relationship of Parents and the Children. On June 3, 2014, the 

court held a fact-finding hearing on the petitions to terminate Parents’ parental 

rights and heard testimony from Parents; a DCS case worker; a police officer 

who had observed Parents’ home and the Children prior to the day of the fire 

and was present following the fire; a police detective who investigated the fire,

recommended that charges be filed, and testified that “I don’t come across a 

situation like this very often where kids are put in this much danger;” a case 

manager with a licensed child placing agency; a foster parent of G.C.; a foster 

parent of S.C. who had originally been a foster parent of the Children; a foster 

parent of D.C.; a DCS family case manager assigned to Parents; a home based 

therapist; and a guardian ad litem. Transcript at 50. DCS presented evidence 

that its plan for the Children was adoption. Counsel for Father and DCS filed 

proposed findings. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 4 of 18

[6] On July 28, 2014, the court entered a twenty-three page order of involuntary 

termination of parental rights, including 256 findings of fact. The order 

concludes that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for the 

Children’s placement outside of the home will not be remedied, that 

termination of the parent-child relationship between Parents and the Children is

in the best interests of the Children, and that DCS’s plan of continuing 

placement, placement for adoption, and continuing counseling and medical 

care for the Children is a satisfactory plan of care and treatment. 

Discussion

[7] The issue is whether the findings of the trial court support the termination of

parental rights. When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not 

reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Bester v. Lake 

Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). Instead, we 

consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to 

the judgment. Id. When reviewing findings of fact and conclusions thereon in 

a case involving a termination of parental rights, we apply a two-tiered standard 

of review. Id. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, 

and second we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We

will set aside the trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. A 

judgment is “clearly erroneous if the findings do not support the trial court’s 

conclusions or the conclusions do not support the judgment.” Id. 

[8] This court has long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases 

concerning the termination of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 5 of 18

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to 

punish the parents, but to protect their children. Id. A trial court 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, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[9] In order to terminate a parent-child relationship, 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 well-being 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’s burden of proof for establishing these 

allegations in termination cases “is one of ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In 

re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-1261 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-14-

2), reh’g denied. If the court finds that the allegations in a petition described in 

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4 are true, the court shall terminate the parent-child 

relationship. Id. (citing Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 6 of 18

[10] Parents contend that the trial court’s findings do not support its judgment that 

there was a reasonable probability that the reasons for the Children’s removal

would not be remedied, that termination of the parent-child relationship was in 

the best interests of the Children, and that there was a satisfactory plan for the 

care and treatment of the Children. Parents limit their arguments to whether 

the findings of the trial court support the court’s judgment, and they do not 

assert that the court’s findings were not based upon the evidence presented at 

the fact-finding hearing. 

A. Remedy of Conditions

[11] The trial court concluded that there is a reasonable probability that, because of 

Parents’ inability to meet the basic needs of the Children and their pattern of 

being able to complete services but not fully benefit from them, the conditions 

that resulted in the Children’s removal from the home have not and will not be 

remedied. The court further concluded that there is a reasonable probability 

that, because of Parents’ drug use and incarceration, the reasons for the 

Children’s placement outside of the home will not be remedied. 

[12] The involuntary termination statute is written in the disjunctive and requires 

proof of only one of the circumstances listed in Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B). 

To determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

which resulted in the removal of the children will not be remedied, the trial 

court must 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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 7 of 18

In re N.Q., 996 N.E.2d 385, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Due to the permanent 

effect of termination, the trial court also must evaluate the parent’s habitual 

patterns of conduct to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation 

of the child. Id. “The statute does not simply focus on the initial basis for a 

child’s removal for purposes of determining whether a parent’s rights should be 

terminated, but also those bases resulting in the continued placement outside 

the home.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A court may 

properly 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. Id. A trial court can reasonably consider the 

services offered by DCS to the parent and the parent’s response to those 

services. Id. Further, where there are only temporary improvements and the 

pattern of conduct shows no overall progress, the court might reasonably find 

that under the circumstances, the problematic situation will not improve. Id. 

[13] Parents argue that the trial court’s conclusions are based primarily on their 

conduct before their arrests and the removal of the Children from their home. 

They argue that they both admitted to struggling with methamphetamine use 

for ten to fifteen years, they were using methamphetamine constantly for a few 

months before their arrest, and that their action after the removal of the 

Children was more indicative of changed conditions. In support, Parents point 

to the court’s findings that both of them were cooperative with DCS after the 

Children were removed; that Mother started services when she was released 

from jail, completed substance abuse treatment, had not tested positive while on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 8 of 18

probation, was employed and was working on having her driver’s license 

reinstated; she was making payments on a vehicle and was looking for 

apartments; and that Father intends to live at his mother’s house upon his 

release from prison and acknowledged he needs to start over with drug classes, 

obtain a vehicle, and show he can care for the Children. Parents also contend

that, although Mother had not yet made enough progress for DCS to 

recommend reunification, there was no evidence that she had stopped making 

progress in the six months between her release from incarceration and the 

termination hearing, and they assert that Father was set to be released from 

incarceration in a short period of time. 

[14] DCS notes that Parents do not challenge any of the court’s findings of fact and 

that the court entered numerous findings related to Mother’s drug use for ten 

years and Father’s drug use for fifteen years, the unsanitary condition of 

Parents’ home and presence of drugs and precursors in the home, Parents’ 

incarceration, Parents’ neglect of the Children, the Children’s medical issues 

and needs including the specialized care required by D.C. and G.C., Parents’ 

visitation with the Children, and Parents’ response to services including that 

Father was still incarcerated, there was not enough progress on Mother’s part to 

increase visitation, and that DCS remained concerned about Parents’ long 

history of drug use and their ability to care for the Children’s medical and daily 

needs. DCS contends that Parents’ argument that the trial court gave too much 

weight to their prior conduct is a request for this court to reweigh the evidence. 

DCS also argues that Parents did not take D.C. and G.C. to their medical 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 9 of 18

appointments and were not meeting their needs, the Children were severely 

neglected, Parents continued their drug use and increased their dependence to 

the point of making their own methamphetamine and using it as fast as they 

could make it, and that the manufacturing posed a direct threat to the 

Children’s safety when the family home caught fire. DCS further argues that 

Parents have been unable to show they are close to being able to provide the 

Children with a permanent and stable home environment in light of the 

Children’s significant needs, both a guardian ad litem and family case manager 

testified that Parents have not reached the point where their ability to parent the 

Children can be observed and evaluated, Mother admitted she would be unable 

to care for D.C. and G.C. on her own, Father’s earliest release date was May 

2015, and that the court found Parents’ progress had not been enough to 

demonstrate their ability to care for the Children. DCS also asserts that the 

Children’s stability is paramount given their medical and emotional needs and 

that D.C. and G.C. require surgery and face lengthy recoveries and therapy. 

[15] To the extent Parents emphasize certain findings of the trial court and claim 

that the court focused on their conduct prior to the removal of the Children, we 

will not reweigh the evidence and will consider only the evidence and

reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment. See Bester, 839 N.E.2d at 

147. 

[16] The court entered 256 findings of fact which relate primarily to the nature and 

severity of Parents’ drug use, observations of the condition of the Children’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 10 of 18

living conditions, the Children’s extensive medical and personal needs, and 

Parents’ neglect of those needs. 

[17] The court found that Mother was thirty-four years old and struggled with 

methamphetamine use for ten years, that for the last few years before her arrest 

she used all of the time, that Father was thirty-two years old and has had 

substance abuse issues for fifteen years, and that Parents were manufacturing 

methamphetamine just to use and not to sell.

[18] The court also found that the Children and Parents were present at Parents’ 

house when the back porch area caught fire, that Mother was cooperative with 

DCS but was not forthcoming with information, and that all the Children were 

in the home when methamphetamine was being cooked. The court noted that a 

police officer observed that the Parents’ home was unclean with clothing in 

piles in different rooms and that it was not easy to move through on the day the 

Children were detained, the officer observed the Children in the house on a 

previous occasion and noticed that the boys had special needs and that one boy 

pulled himself along the floor with his arms, that a video camera pointed onto 

the outside porch, and that the fire department found precursors to 

methamphetamine in the kitchen area. 

[19] The court further noted that, according to the police detective, a fire inspector 

believed that items in the house were used as a drug lab, including two plastic 

bottles, two Coleman camping fuel cans, and a package of coffee filters found

near one of the cans. The court found that several items of drug use and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 11 of 18

paraphernalia were found in a bedroom closet, that the fire was on the back 

porch which leads into the kitchen and that the kitchen is accessible to anyone 

in the house, and that battery casings were also discovered. The court noted the 

detectives’ observations that the home was unkempt, dirty, and in disarray, and 

found that drug manufacturing is inherently more dangerous than simple drug 

use, and that it is dangerous to breathe in the fumes. 

[20] The court found that Mother pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine 

and three counts of neglect of a dependent as felonies, she received a sentence 

of four years with two years suspended, she was released from incarceration in 

November 2013, she was on probation at the time of the hearing, Father was 

incarcerated at the time of the hearing, Father is not allowed to reside with 

Mother once he is released, Father pled guilty to dealing in methamphetamine

and three counts of neglect of a dependent as felonies, he was sentenced to ten 

years with five years suspended, his earliest release date was May 14, 2015, and 

that his time can be reduced if he completes inpatient drug treatment. 

[21] With respect to Parents’ neglect of the Children, the court found that Mother 

admitted the Children were not receiving the attention they needed, Parents 

had been in trouble for not taking D.C. and G.C. to their medical 

appointments, D.C. and G.C. have cerebral palsy and have many medical 

needs, specialized medical care was arranged for D.C. and G.C. at Riley 

Hospital, D.C. and G.C. needed to go but did not, and that Parents did not 

have money for those trips or Father would sometimes be gone. The court also 

found that Parents were involved with DCS in Delaware County for not taking 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 12 of 18

D.C. and G.C. to medical appointments and that DCS in Wells County did an 

investigation of Parents’ family and it was found that D.C. was unsupervised in 

the street and that Parents were sleeping while G.C. was responsible for 

watching D.C. Further, the court found that Father would frequently be gone 

overnight on roofing jobs for five nights per week, and that he obtained a 

roofing job because he was unable to pass drug screens at other employment. 

[22] Among numerous other findings, the court referenced the facts that D.C. and 

G.C. had cavities and decayed teeth and were dehydrated and severely 

malnourished, it had been four years since D.C. had been seen by his physician,

D.C. cannot feed himself, and that Mother used to give S.C. sleeping pills. The 

court noted that DCS looked into relative placement but no family member was 

willing to keep the Children for longer than a few months, that a case manager 

visits D.C. and G.C. at least weekly and works with G.C. on expressing 

emotions, on his hygiene, his education, and his transportation needs to Riley 

Hospital, that G.C. also sees a counselor who does home-based therapy, that 

G.C. has been in his placement since January 2013, and that he has been doing 

really well in his placement. 

[23] As to D.C., the court found that he has been with his foster family for almost 

two years, needs extensive daily care with even the most basic needs, has had 

and will continue to have many treatments and surgeries for his cerebral palsy, 

his foster parents are looking at obtaining a ramp for their van, and that all the 

people in the household care for him. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 13 of 18

[24] As for S.C., the court found that she struggles at school with staying on task, 

following rules, and with self-control, that she is a bright girl and otherwise does 

well in school, that she has no medical needs except for regular check-ups, that 

in the beginning S.C. had a hard time sleeping, was not used to a structured 

bedtime, and was afraid of the dark, and that she does great now. The court 

also found that a home-based therapist works with G.C. and S.C. regarding 

anger management, feelings, and their separation from Parents, and that S.C. 

lives only a few doors from D.C. and sees him often. However, S.C.’s foster 

parents do not intend to adopt her. 

[25] With respect to Parents’ contact with the Children, the court found that Mother 

saw the Children one time per month while at the Wells County Jail but had no 

visits with them while at Rockville and Madison Correctional Facilities, she 

wrote letters to the Children during this time, at some time after Mother was 

released from incarceration visits took place with the Children at the Wells 

County Library for one hour, and that Father wrote letters to Mother and the 

Children from jail and prison. 

[26] With respect to Mother’s situation, she has lived with her foster sister and her 

family since November 2013, is currently employed and works second shift,

pays $200 per month in rent and $100 a week for groceries and other bills, rides 

with a co-worker to and from work, has not had a driver’s license since 2002, 

has multiple offenses for driving with a suspended license, recently completed a 

course on substance abuse, has been looking for an apartment with her home-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 14 of 18

based worker, and has purchased a vehicle but still needs to pay off a prior 

electric bill. 

[27] Among the court’s other findings, in September 2013, a permanency hearing 

was held and DCS requested time to work with Mother on reunification 

because she was being released from incarceration. She was released in 

November 2013 and in February 2013 a permanency plan of reunification was 

reviewed and was changed to initiation of termination of parental rights 

proceedings followed by adoption, because, while Mother was participating in 

services, there was not enough progress to be able to increase visitation or to 

move any of the Children into her care. The court also found that Father wants 

to start over with drug classes, have a vehicle, and show he can care for the 

Children. 

[28] Services provided to Mother included home-based therapy, home-maker

services, and substance abuse assessments and groups, and she received positive 

reports. The court found that a goal of DCS is for Mother to find housing, that 

DCS “could not reunify with [Mother] today,” and that, “[e]ven three children 

together as a unit or separately, [DCS] cannot recommend sending them home. 

[Mother] has not made enough progress so far.” Appellants’ Appendix at 127. 

DCS expressed concerns about past drug usage and what will happen when 

Father enters Mother’s life again, that school occurs during first shift and that 

child care would be needed during Mother’s work hours, that Father has been 

unavailable so it is difficult to say if he can maintain sobriety, keep up a home 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 15 of 18

address, and maintain the Children’s medical needs and treatments. DCS 

recommended termination of Parents’ parental rights. 

[29] The evidence and the court’s findings establish that Parents did not meet the 

needs of the Children, the Children were severely neglected, Parents placed the 

Children in an unsafe and unsanitary environment, including exposing them to 

a methamphetamine lab, and that Parents had extensive substance abuse issues 

which affected their stability and ability to care for the Children. The evidence 

and the court’s findings further show that Parents are not close to being able to 

provide the Children with a permanent and stable home environment and to 

provide the attention and care the Children need, and Mother admitted that she 

was unable to care for D.C. and G.C. on her own. The court expressed its 

concerns regarding Parents’ drug use history, their ability to care for the 

Children and provide housing and transportation, and what will occur when 

Father is released from incarceration. The court found that, according to DCS, 

Mother did not make enough progress to show she could care for the Children

together or individually and that the Children had immediate medical and other 

needs which needed to be addressed right away. The evidence and findings 

also establish that the Children have improved in almost every area of their 

lives, including their health conditions and schooling, since their removal from 

Parents’ care and placement in foster homes. 

[30] Based upon the court’s findings, we conclude that clear and convincing

evidence supports the trial court’s determination that there was a reasonable 

probability that the conditions leading to the Children’s removal would not be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 16 of 18

remedied. See In re K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1234 (Ind. 2013) (holding that the 

trial court was within its discretion to consider that the first eleven months of 

the mother’s sobriety were spent in prison where she would not have had access 

to any illegal substances, that the court was within its discretion to disregard the 

efforts the mother made only shortly before termination and to weigh more 

heavily the mother’s history of conduct prior to those efforts, and that the 

evidence showed a reasonable probability that the conditions leading to the 

children’s removal from the mother’s home would not be remedied).

B. Best Interests and Satisfactory Plan

[31] We next consider Parents’ assertion that DCS failed to demonstrate that 

termination of their parental rights was in the Children’s best interests and 

Parents’ claim that DCS did not have a satisfactory plan for the care and 

treatment of the Children. We are mindful that in determining what is in the 

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

identified by the DCS and to the totality of the evidence. McBride, 798 N.E.2d 

at 203. In so doing, the court must subordinate the interests of the parent to 

those of the children. Id. The court need not wait until a child is irreversibly 

harmed before terminating the parent-child relationship. Id. This court has 

previously held that the recommendation by both the case manager and child 

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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 17 of 18

A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1158-1159 (Ind. Ct. App.

2013), trans. denied. 

[32] Further, this court has held that adoption is a satisfactory plan for the care and 

treatment of a child under the termination of parental rights statute. In re B.M., 

913 N.E.2d 1283, 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing In re A.N.J., 690 N.E.2d 

716, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)). “This plan need not be detailed, so long as it 

offers a general sense of the direction in which the child will be going after the 

parent-child relationship is terminated.” In re Termination of Parent-Child 

Relationship of D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

[33] Based on the totality of the evidence as discussed and set forth in the trial 

court’s order, including the medical conditions and needs of D.C. and G.C., 

Parents’ history of drug use and concerns regarding their ability to obtain an 

appropriate permanent and stable home environment and care for the Children, 

the improvement the Children have realized since their foster placements, the 

recommendation of the DCS family case manager that she could not reunify or 

recommend to the court to reunify the Children with Mother, and the 

recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the court move forward with the 

termination of Parents’ parental rights so that DCS could move forward with 

adoption and permanency for the Children, we conclude that the court’s

determination that termination was in the Children’s best interests is supported 

by clear and convincing evidence. See In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 290 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013) (observing that “[r]ecommendations of the case manager . . . in 

addition to evidence the conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1408-JT-599 | February 27, 2015 Page 18 of 18

are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in 

the child’s best interests”), reh’g denied. The record also reveals that the court’s 

findings support its conclusion that adoption is a satisfactory plan for the care 

and treatment of the Children. See A.J, v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family and 

Children, 881 N.E.2d 706, 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (concluding that, in light of 

the evidence, the plan for the adoption of the children, albeit in different homes, 

was not unsatisfactory), trans. denied.

Conclusion 

[34] We conclude that the trial court’s judgment terminating the parental rights of 

Parents to the Children is supported by clear and convincing evidence. We find 

no error and affirm.

[35] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.