Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 1 of 24

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Emily A. Fehr

Public Defender

Fortville, Indiana

Nicole A. Zelin

Pritzke & Davis, LLP

Greenfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Abigail Recker

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In Re The Termination of The 

Parent-Child Relationship of: 

Ca.B. and C.B. (Minor Children),

and

T.B. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

July 2, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

30A05-1711-JT-2788

Appeal from the Hancock Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Jeffrey Eggers, 

Judge 

The Honorable R. Scott Sirk, 

Court Commissioner

Trial Court Cause Nos.

30C01-1704-JT-129

30C01-1704-JT-130

Barnes, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 2 of 24

Case Summary

[1] T.B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, 

C.B. and Ca.B. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The restated issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Facts

[3] Mother gave birth to C.B. on August 3, 2009, and to Ca.B. on July 13, 2013. 

C.B.’s father is C.H.1 Ca.B.’s father is T.W.2 On January 28, 2016, the 

Hancock County Office of the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received 

a report alleging that Mother was abusing heroin and methamphetamine, 

neglecting the children, and failing to properly supervise them. DCS family 

case manager Lauren Johnson made an unannounced visit to Mother and her 

boyfriend, T.W., and “observed [them] to be under the influence.” App. Vol. II 

p. 3. Mother and T.W. “were sweating profusely,” “had scabs on their faces 

 

1 C.H. is not a party to this appeal. He was incarcerated at the outset of the underlying CHINS action and 

could not take custody of C.B. C.B. was placed with C.H.’s mother, Roxann Swann, during the pendency, 

and she intends to adopt C.B. 

2 T.W.’s parental rights as to Ca.B. remain in effect. DCS is “giving him more time” because “[h]e has 

started to turn things around and he has been working on sobriety”; “he’s been getting services and he’s been 

consistently reporting to those services, he’s been attending the meetings, [and] he’s been in compliance.” Tr. 

Vol. II pp. 94, 96. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 3 of 24

and arms,” and “there was a distinct odor in the master bedroom . . . that is 

similar to the smell of methamphetamine.” Supp. Tr. Vol. II p. 10.

[4] Mother subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, 

opiates, and THC. C.B. told Johnson that “he often has to take care of Ca.B.”; 

that Mother and T.W. are “always in their bathroom and the door is locked”; 

he “has to feed [Ca.B.] and stay with him”; and “that he does not feel safe with 

[Mother] and T.W.” Id. at 12. DCS removed the children from Mother’s care.

[5] On February 2, 2016, DCS filed petitions alleging that C.B. and Ca.B. were 

Children in Need of Services (“CHINS”). The trial court conducted an initial 

and fact-finding hearing on February 11, 2016, and entered these findings:

e) Mother and Father admit that [C.B.] is a Child in Need of 

Services;

f) Mother used illegal drugs while [C.B.] was in her care and 

custody;

* * * * *

i) Due to her illegal drug use, Mother could not adequately 

supervise [C.B.];

j) Mother continues to struggle with substance use;

k) [C.B.] needs services that would not otherwise be provided or 

accepted without the coercive intervention of the Court; . . . .

App. Vol. II p. 4. The trial court made identical findings as to Ca.B.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 4 of 24

[6] The trial court conducted a dispositional hearing on April 6, 2016. In its 

ensuing order, the trial court found that the children should remain under 

DCS’s wardship. Under DCS’s case plan, Mother was to: (1) maintain contact 

with DCS and to provide updates regarding her contact information, 

household, employment, and criminal charges, if any; (2) allow 

scheduled/unscheduled DCS visits to assess her parenting; (3) keep 

appointments with DCS, the children’s court-appointed special advocate 

(“CASA”), and their service providers; (4) obtain and maintain housing as well 

as sufficient means of income or support to raise the children; (5) ensure and 

actively participate in home-based counseling; (6) complete substance abuse 

and parenting assessments and follow all service providers’ recommendations; 

(7) submit to random drug screens upon request; (8) abstain from possessing or 

using illegal drugs; (9) comply with supervised visitation; and (10) provide a 

safe, secure, abuse- and neglect-free environment for the children.

[7] During the CHINS pendency, DCS referred Mother to Medicaid, out-of-home 

placement, supervised visitation, sibling visitation, individual therapy, random 

drug screens, and substance abuse treatment services. Mother, however, grew 

increasingly apathetic and “was unsuccessfully closed out of all services due to 

non-compliance.” Id. at 6. In the twenty-month CHINS pendency, she visited 

the children only once; consistently failed to comply with DCS’s case plan; and 

failed to maintain contact with DCS. Her counsel was allowed to withdraw 

“due to [M]other’s lack of participation.” Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 5 of 24

[8] The record reveals that, after various review hearings, permanency hearings,

and hearings on motions for rule to show cause, the trial court consistently 

found Mother’s efforts to be lacking as follows: Mother (1) “has not complied 

with the child[ren]’s case plan”; (2)” has not complied with the dispositional 

order”; (3) “has not maintained contact with the Department”; (4) “has not 

engaged in services as ordered”

3

; (5) “has not provided any changes in address, 

household composition, employment or contact information” such that as of 

January 25, 2017, DCS did “not have a current address or phone number for 

Mother” and was “unable to verify that Mother’s home is suitable, safe and 

stable for the children; (6) has “provided false information to the DCS that she 

completed an intensive outpatient treatment program, but the alleged service 

provider had not provided that treatment for mother, and [M]other had failed to 

attend the scheduled intake appointment”; (7) was “unsuccessfully discharged 

from supervised visitation due to noncompliance”; (8) “had open referrals for 

substance abuse treatment since 2/2/2016, but has not completed any 

treatment programs”; (9) “was unsuccessfully discharged from home-based 

casework, individual therapy, and parenting education due to non-compliance”;

(10) “never completed her clinical interview and assessment”; (11) “has not 

provided consistent drug screens”; (12) “has done nothing [in the twenty-month

pendency] to improve her ability to parent the child safely”; (13) was 

 

3 Mother contacted the family case manager in July 2016 following a hearing in which she was found in 

contempt and admonished to communicate with DCS. “However, when she would contact the family case 

manager, she would typically provide an excuse as to why she was not able to come in to submit a drug 

screen.” App. Vol. II p. 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 6 of 24

unsuccessfully discharged from home-based casework and home-based therapy 

programs due to noncompliance; (14) failed to complete a clinical interview and 

assessment; (15) no-call-no-showed for multiple appointments with the family 

case manager; (16) “has not provided any proof of any legal and stable sources 

of income” such that DCS “is unable to determine if Mother has sufficient 

income to financially support her children”; (17) provided no drug screens from

April 2016 until July 2017, after which she “provided a few drug screens” but 

again failed to submit to drug screens as requested after July 20, 2017, such that 

DCS “[wa]s not able to verify that Mother [wa]s not currently using, 

manufacturing, trading, selling, possessing or distributing any illegal controlled 

substances”; (18) was unsuccessfully discharged from parenting education for

noncompliance; (19) “was discharged from supervised visitation due to 

noncompliance”; and (20) “[d]ue to Mother’s lack of compliance and failure to 

appear to court hearings throughout her case,” she was unsuccessfully

discharged from all services [and] cease of services was ordered on 

04/12/2017.”

4

 App. Vol. II pp. 6-7.

 

4 DCS referred Mother to the following non-exhaustive list of services during the pendency; she was 

unsuccessfully discharged from each one for non-compliance: (1) LifeLine Youth and Family Services for 

Supervised Visitation on February 8, 2016; (2) LifeSolutions for home-based case work and individual 

therapy on April 6, 2016; (3) Volunteers of America for inpatient substance abuse treatment on February 2, 

2016; (4) LifeLine Youth and Family Services for parenting education on April 6, 2016; and (5) Indianapolis 

Treatment Center.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 7 of 24

[9] DCS’s wardship of the children resulted from Mother’s drug abuse. During the 

twenty-month pendency of the CHINS action, she was arrested for dealing ten 

or more grams of methamphetamine. The trial court’s findings state,

Mother is currently facing felony 2 charges under cause 49G21-

1703-F2-9974 for dealing in Methamphetamine

Manufacture/Deliver/Finance - 10 or more grams. Mother’s codefendant is also facing charges for dealing. The prosecutor 

indicated that the co-defendant is an illegal [alien] in this country 

and is facing multiple charges on the federal level due to his

illegal [alien] status as well as his drug charges. Mother made 

phone calls while incarcerated. Those calls were to her 

associates. She told her associates that if they did not bail her out 

of jail, she would tell law enforcement everything she knows 

about the drug business. Mother was subsequently bailed out. 

The prosecutor informed DCS that these individuals are not your 

“run-of-the-mill pot smokers” but are trafficking large amounts of 

drugs into our community. Mother’s involvement in a dangerous 

criminal enterprise, along with her drug use, pose a safety threat 

to her, as well as any children that may be in her care. At this 

time, the Department does not believe it is safe or appropriate to 

allow [M]other to have access to her children, as their safety and 

best interest is paramount in this CHINS matter.

Id. at 9.

[10] Although Mother often stated that she wanted to reunite with the children, she

failed to undertake the necessary steps to effect reunification. The trial court’s 

findings state,

4. Mother has been given the opportunity by the Court and 

DCS to re-engage in services in an attempt to reunify with 

her child[ren]. DCS has offered random drug screens and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 8 of 24

scheduled a case plan conference to discuss further 

services. Mother has not come in to submit to drug 

screens as asked. Mother has been unsuccessfully 

discharged from all services referred by the Department;

* * * * *

12. The Court, at the permanency hearing on 7/12/2017, 

continued the TPR hearing regarding the child and 

changed the permanency plan to a concurrent plan of 

adoption and reunification. The Court made it clear that

this was [M]other’s last opportunity to make a change and 

comply with services. Mother has not complied with 

services, has not improved in her parenting ability, and 

continues to put her own desires before the best interest of 

her child[ren].

13. Mother testified, under oath, that she has not used any 

illegal substances since the permanency hearing on 

7/12/17. She testified that she has no positive drug 

screens during the period from that date until the court

hearing today.

14. The Court entered an order for release of [M]other’s 

records from Indianapolis Treatment Center.

15. Mother then informed the court that her previous 

statement of not using illegal substances was untrue and 

there were positive screens for illegal substances. Mother 

thereby admitted to committing perjury at the hearing on 

8/16/17 in this cause.

Id. at 11-12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 9 of 24

[11] On April 18, 2017, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to 

C.B. and Ca.B. The trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on the petitions 

for termination on October 25, 2017. DCS assessment family case manager 

Lauren Johnson testified that she received the initial report about Mother’s 

substance abuse and that she interviewed Mother and T.W. Johnson 

performed a home environment check, administered drug screens, and removed 

the children after Mother and T.W. tested positive for methamphetamine. 

Johnson testified that she referred Mother to supervised visitation, residential 

substance abuse treatment, home based casework, home-based therapy, and 

parenting education, among other services. Tr. Vol. II p. 18.

[12] DCS family case manager Connor McCarty testified that he took over Mother’s 

case in July 2016, but that Mother “did not stay in contact” and, except for 

“brief[ ]” contact in July and August 2016 and “one or two phone calls” before 

December 2016. Id. at 30. He testified that Mother failed to provide up-to-date 

contact information, failed to submit to regular drug screens, failed to complete

her substance abuse assessment and was unsuccessfully discharged, and 

provided inaccurate information regarding her enrollment in intensive 

outpatient classes to address her substance abuse. 

[13] Mother failed to engage in services, even after DCS filed multiple rule to show 

cause motions regarding her lack of effort. He testified that Mother lied about 

remaining sober, but “went back and stated that she had lied and . . . did test 

positive.” Id. at 34. He testified further,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 10 of 24

Since the time of removal Mother has continued to test positive 

as well as received unsuccessful discharges from any service that 

has tried to help her and change – and address her challenges, as 

well as now she has legal involvement and has been incarcerated 

quite a few times.

Id. at 39. Mother contacted McCarty in March 2017 and “indicated . . . that 

she would like to meet and go over services again.” Id. at 32. He testified that 

DCS did not restart services because she failed to demonstrate consistency and 

because she “was not clean and sober during the summer.” Id. at 111.

[14] McCarty testified as follows regarding the children’s progress in placement:

[C.B.] has had ups and downs as far as his emotions and being 

very angry and having anger outbursts, not being able to control 

that anger or being able to express a lot of the trauma that he 

went through. He’s very – was very agitated. He was diagnosed 

with ADHD and PTSD, they had a lot of – or had a lot of issues 

in school as far as being able to focus and listen as well as trouble 

at home being able to – to there again follow, obey rules and 

things of that nature.

* * * * *

[C.B.] still has ups and downs, he’s got some really good—good

weeks, and then as things come up he processes through them. 

But he’s fully engaged in his therapy with—he’s got two . . . 

therapists at this point. He’s got an individual therapist that he 

sees outside of school and then he also sees a therapist at school 

that’s able to do—work on social skills and group activities after 

school. And he’s able to—has done a lot better at being able to 

express his emotions, and grandparents have done a phenomenal 

job as well as working in that therapy and being engaged to help 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 11 of 24

take what he learns in therapy and be able to engage that at home 

to help calm him down, learn appropriate coping skills and things 

of that nature.

Id. at 42-43. McCarty testified that he recommends adoption by C.B.’s paternal 

grandparents and that delaying adoption to allow Mother to more time to “get 

things together” would exacerbate C.B.’s behavioral issues and anxiety and 

could “caus[e] continued trauma” because C.B. craves permanency. Id. at 44.

[15] As to Ca.B., McCarty testified that, upon removal, he was developmentallydelayed, nonverbal, and had dietary issues. In placement, Ca.B. “is engaged in 

services . . . . receives speech therapy as well as individual therapy and he—

we’re working towards visitation with Father [T.W.].” Id. at 47. McCarty 

testified that it is in Ca.B.’s best interest to be adopted in his foster placement or 

reunified with T.W.

[16] Child mental health therapist Becky Vandenburgh testified that she provided 

biweekly therapy services to C.B. for almost two years. At the outset of his 

therapy, C.B. “was a very sad, distraught little boy”; had “witnessed a lot of 

things . . . that he should not have” and “was very scared and broken and angry 

and hungry.” Id. at 54. C.B. has “ADHD, PTSD, parent/child neglect, 

[and]anxiety.” Id. Vandenburgh focused on “get[ting] him to feel safe and 

secure in an environment [with] rules and structure and food and doctor’s 

appointments and clothing” because 

if you don’t have those you can’t start to have safety, security, 

emotional development, you can’t focus in school. If you’re 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 12 of 24

always hungry, that’s your focus of where am I going to get my 

next meal. And I say that because he would tell me he wasn’t 

fed. 

* * * * *

When we first started drawing together he drew a picture of this 

Mother with a chainsaw and he was chopping her up, so we saw 

a lot of anger. And in talking about that it’s—it’s hurt right? It’s 

pain. And he would say I love her but I hate her because she 

does drugs. Those are her—his words right. Lots of guns, I 

would see lots of scribbling of red, anger, hurt, pain. Sometimes 

he would draw a picture and then he would yell at it and cuss at 

it and I said you can say whatever you need to say in here. In 

our sandbox therapy you have a bunch of different toys you can 

pick from and they play out—they re-enact kind of their 

experience and what they’ve been through. So a lot of times he 

would be picking police officers and army people, guys with guns 

and swords and they – they would be fighting. So again, he—

he’s seen police come to the house, he’s seen—he would say 

Mom would lock herself up in the bathroom or bedroom and not 

come out because – and he knew she was doing drugs, he would 

say he’d see needles and syringes. And over and over again he 

would say I hate her, I wish she would get sober, I don’t want to 

talk to her until she gets sober.

Id. at 55-56. Vandenburgh testified that C.B.’s paternal grandmother, Roxann 

Swann, is consistent, reliable, actively participates in his therapy, adopts his 

therapists’ recommendations and suggestions, and “has been a huge protective 

factor in his being a successful, loving, productive individual when he grows 

up.” Id. at 59. Vandenburgh testified that Mother has never participated in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 13 of 24

C.B.’s therapy and that she has “never once heard from her.” Id. at 59. 

Vandenburgh has observed “[a] ton” of progress”:

[C.B. is] happier. He’s—he’s engaged, he can play games and he 

can cooperate, he can share, he can—he’s polite . . . . He’s doing 

better in school. I remember one of the things he said to me was 

Mommy—I never went to school, they never made me go to 

school and I like school, I like to go and learn. Now since he’s 

started there he’s had ups and downs at school which is normal 

for what he’s been through that he’s gonna have some issues with 

focusing and anxiety and some of the stomachaches and 

headaches that he would have. But we’ve seen a lot of progress. 

* * * * * One of the last times I asked him to draw something 

that was—draw a picture of the rain. So it was very open to him 

and he drew a picture of himself in the rain with an umbrella 

over him which is an indicator that now he has some . . . coping 

skills that he now knows when I’m in the rain in need this 

protection. So the umbrella is a symbol of where and how he’s 

progressed from guns and chainsaws and anger and sadness to 

now I’m safe and I have protection.

Id. at 57-58. Vandenburgh testified that delaying termination of Mother’s 

parental rights would deny C.B. “a better prognosis”

[because] he needs the stability. . . .[H]e needs just to kind of be 

done and to know that he has a safe place that he can call home 

and it’s now—well, what’s gonna happen next, do I have to go 

back with her, will she be sober, how long will this take. 

Id. at 59. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 14 of 24

[17] C.B.’s paternal grandmother, Roxann Swan, testified that, among other times, 

C.B. “lived with [her] “from 2009 through 2013” and “from January through 

April 2015,” when “Mother needed some assistance, she was trying to help 

herself get off of drugs . . . . .” Id. at 65. Swann had the following concerns 

while C.B. was in Mother’s care:

[C.B.] had PTSD, he was in need of glasses and had not gotten 

his exam, he was six and had never been to the dentist, he was 

catching strep throat a lot. I think it was just – that was due to 

immune system breakdown because he was not getting an 

adequate amount of sleep.

Id. at 65. She also testified about C.B.’s linked issues relating to food and 

anxiety, including devouring his food, obsessing about the availability of food

in the future, and being fearful of “tak[ing] the last piece of [food].” Id. at 66. 

She testified further,

. . . [H]e would have to play his Xbox all day because—so he 

wouldn’t think about being hungry. He was raising and taking 

care of his brother and he would give up his food to make sure 

his brother was taken care of. There—he would—he had 

mentioned being locked in the closet so he did not—he does not 

like doors closed most of the time. 

* * * * *

It was basically that they weren’t feeding the kids. He said—he 

had told me that they—there was not much food other than 

maybe ice cream once in a while or juice. It was not accessible to 

him. He had mentioned to me one time—he said that Mommy 

had gone to the store and she came home with a bunch of food 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 15 of 24

and he was so happy but it all got put up and it was never 

accessible to him. He stated that on a couple of occasions that 

[T.W.] had fixed a meal and he said I could smell it, I could see it 

looked so good, I was so hungry but he took it upstairs to the 

bedroom and ate and I didn’t get any. He did state that he was 

given a box of food for Christmas but that there was a note in it 

saying that he had to pay for it.

Id. at 67-68. In Mother’s care, C.B. had a record of excessive school absences 

and tardy notices; and in placement, Swann remedied his school attendance 

record and participation. C.B. is enjoying “the normal things” in family life 

and visiting with Ca.B., while also “relinquish[ing] that caregiver role.” Id. at 

75.

[18] Abby Jackson, foster mom to Ca.B, testified that, when Ca.B. was placed with 

her, he had a compromised immune system, was underweight, 

developmentally-delayed, had an extremely limited diet, struggled with 

different textures of foods, hoarded toys, and “just wasn’t functioning as a 

normal child.” Id. at. 82. She testified that, although he has demonstrated 

improvement after referrals for speech therapy, developmental special needs 

preschool, he still displays some abnormal behaviors:

For one, he doesn’t know how to be carried. * * * * * He don’t 

[sic] even know how to ride on your hip like any child knows 

from an infant. When he goes to bed at night he does not get out 

of his bed in the morning. He waits for you to come get him still 

to this day. He um – he will lay there forever and ever and ever 

until you either come get him or now he’ll say Mama, Mama and 

he’ll let me know he’s awake and then I’ll come in and get him 

and then he’ll get out of his bed. He doesn’t like any doors 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 16 of 24

closed . . . . He’s scared to death of having closet doors shut. He 

– he’s scared to death to be left alone in a dark car (inaudible) be 

riding in a dark car at night. He’s still voicing those concerns 

now two years after being removed.

Id. at 83-84. Jackson noted that (1) she has participated in Ca.B.’s therapies 

and has learned skills to help him cope; (2) Mother has not engaged in any of 

Ca.B.’s services; (3) Ca.B. is now “extremely bonded” to her; (4) Ca.B. eats a 

broader, healthier range of foods; (5) Ca.B.’s speaking ability is much 

improved; and (6) Ca.B. enjoys a more normal sibling relationship with C.B, 

whom he sees “at least every other week if not once a week.” Id. at 85, 87. 

Lastly, she testified that she and her husband want to adopt Ca.B. and that 

“he’s happy, . . . thriving, . . . bonded with us . . . . [and] he gets to be a normal 

child and in a loving, stable home.” Id. at 88.

[19] The CASA testified that, based on her “consistent positive [drug] tests, her 

criminal activity” and lack of engagement or progress, allowing Mother to have 

an ongoing relationship with the children would put their safety at risk. Id. at 

95.

[20] Mother testified that she was sober at the termination hearing dating back to her 

September 2017 incarceration for failing a drug test and testing positive for 

methamphetamine. Tr. Vol. II p. 12. She asked for additional time to receive 

services, demonstrate improvement, and to work toward reunification. She 

admitted that she was arrested during the pendency; that she used drugs in jail, 

but that she had remained sober for “a little bit over a month” at the time of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 17 of 24

termination hearing. Id. at 125. On November 8, 2017, the trial court entered 

its order terminating Mother’s parental rights. App. Vol. II pp. 86. As to each 

child, the trial court found, among other things:

23.) * * * * * a) . . .[M]other has not participated in services, 

visited with the child, or obtained or maintained sobriety;

b) The child’s mother has failed to establish or maintain a 

relationship with the child since the opening of the related 

CHINS proceedings in this county for the child, which has been 

a period of 20 months;

c) None of the conditions resulting in the child’s removal from 

the parents’ home and care have been remedied or even 

addressed by the child’s mother;

d) Mother’s criminal dealings, including her associations with 

dangerous criminals, pose a threat to the child’s safety and 

wellbeing;

e) Mother has stated that she wants to reunify with her children, 

but she has made no efforts to make that happen. Her actions 

speak louder than her words, and she continues to act only out of 

self-interest, to the determent [sic] of her child;

24.) . . . [T]here is a reasonable probability that the continuation 

of the parent-child relationship between the biological mother 

and child poses a threat to the well-being of the child, and also 

that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

resulted in the child’s removal from and continued placement 

outside the care and custody of the biological mother will not be 

remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 18 of 24

25.) The child has been removed from the home and care of the 

biological parents since January of 2016, a time period of 

approximately twenty (20) consecutive months through the date 

of the completion of the termination trial. The child has resided 

with his current pre-adoptive relative family since January of 

2016, a time period of approximately twenty (20) months at the 

close of the termination trial. The child knows this family as his 

own and expresses the desire and intention to remain in this 

home permanently as a member of that family. The child has 

positively responded to the stability and structure, as well as the 

love and nurturing, provided by this family, which was 

previously entirely lacking in his life.

26.) The child’s DCS case managers, CASA, therapist, and 

relative caregiver have all testified that termination of the 

parent—child relationship and adoption of the child are in the

child’s best interests. The Court agrees with these opinions, and 

now accepts and adopts them as its own finding of fact in these 

proceedings.

27.) The description of the care, love, and attention given to the 

child by the relative caregivers, as well as the opinions cited 

above, also demonstrate that adoption is a satisfactory plan for 

the care and treatment of the child, which is now also found as 

fact for purposes of these termination proceedings.

Id. at 18. Mother now appeals.

Analysis

[21] Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination of her

parental rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their 

children. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1132 (Ind. 2010). “A parent’s interest in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 19 of 24

the care, custody, and control of his or her children is ‘perhaps the oldest of the 

fundamental liberty interests.’” Id. (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 

120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000)). “Indeed the parent-child relationship is ‘one of the 

most valued relationships in our culture.’” Id. (quoting Neal v. DeKalb County 

Div. of Family & Children, 796 N.E.2d 280, 285 (Ind. 2003)). We recognize that 

parental interests are not absolute and must be subordinated to the child’s 

interests when determining the proper disposition of a petition to terminate 

parental rights. Id. Thus, “‘[p]arental rights may be terminated when the 

parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities.’” Id. 

(quoting In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). 

Courts need not 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. State Office of 

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

“Rather, when the evidence shows that the emotional and physical 

development of a child in need of services is threatened, termination of the 

parent-child relationship is appropriate.” Id. 

[22] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge witness credibility. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1132. We 

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

the judgment. Id. We must also give “due regard” to the trial court’s unique 

opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. (quoting Ind. Trial 

Rule 52(A)). Here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 20 of 24

thereon in granting DCS’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights, as 

required by Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(c). See In re N.G., 61 N.E.3d 1263, 

1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). When reviewing findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon entered in a case involving a termination of parental rights, we apply a 

two-tiered standard of review. First, we determine whether the evidence 

supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support 

the judgment. In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1132. 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. 

[23] Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(a) provides that, “if the court finds that the 

allegations in a petition described in [Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4] are true, 

the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” Indiana Code Section 

31-35-2-4(b)(2) provides that a petition to terminate a parent-child relationship 

involving a child in need of services must allege, in 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 

wellbeing of the child. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 21 of 24

(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. 

DCS must establish these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Egly v. 

Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1234 (Ind. 1992). 

[24] Mother contends there is insufficient evidence that there is a reasonable 

probability the conditions leading to the children’s removal from her care would 

not be remedied.5 In order to prove this element, DCS must establish (1) what 

conditions led to DCS placing and retaining the children in foster care; and (2) 

whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will not be 

remedied. I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1134. When analyzing this issue, courts may 

consider not only the basis for the initial removal of the children, but also 

reasons for the continued placement of the children outside the home thereafter. 

In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Courts 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 circumstances. A.D.S. v. 

 

5 Because Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, DCS needed to prove only 

one of the requirements of subsection (B). We conclude there is sufficient evidence of a reasonable 

probability that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal from Mother’s care would not be remedied, 

and we need not address whether there is sufficient evidence that continuation of the parent-child 

relationship posed a threat to C.B. and Ca.B. See A.D.S., 987 N.E.2d at 1158 n.6. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 22 of 24

Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. 

denied. The parent’s habitual patterns of conduct should be evaluated to 

determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child. Id. 

Factors to consider include 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. Courts also may consider services offered to the 

parent by DCS and the parent’s responses to those services. Id. DCS is not 

required to prove a parent has no possibility of changing; it need only establish 

a reasonable probability that no change will occur. Id.

[25] Here, DCS removed the children because of Mother’s substance abuse and 

resulting inability to meet their basic, educational, and emotional needs. 

Mother’s house smelled of methamphetamine. Her addiction was so acute that 

she locked herself in the bathroom for hours to use methamphetamine and 

would eventually emerge only to remain in a stupor for hours. During the 

twenty-month long CHINS pendency, Mother did not make any progress 

toward achieving sobriety. Mother failed to submit to drug screens as asked. 

She lied under oath when she testified that she had not used illegal substances 

since July 2017. She was arrested during the pendency for dealing in 

methamphetamine and pled guilty to assisting a criminal in violation of the 

court’s orders that she abstain from possessing or using drugs. She failed to 

complete her court-ordered substance abuse assessment and was unsuccessfully 

discharged for noncompliance. Lastly, Mother lied to DCS about her 

enrollment in intensive outpatient classes for her substance abuse. Although 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 23 of 24

Mother asked on multiple occasions for services to be resumed, DCS family 

case manager McCarty testified that she failed to give a consistent string of 

negative drug screens, so DCS doubted her willingness and her ability to 

engaged in those services given that “[Mother] was not clean and sober during 

the summer[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 111.

[26] Mother’s addiction adversely affected the children in significant ways. Child 

therapist Vandenburgh testified that C.B. was “sad,” “distraught,” “angry,” and 

“hungry.” Id. at 54. He had a compromised immune system, was diagnosed 

with ADHD, PTSD, anxiety, behavioral problems, and obsessed about food

availability because he and Ca.B frequently went unfed. Mother’s inability to 

properly parent and provide for the children prompted then-six-year-old C.B., 

who understood that Mother was abusing drugs, to assume a parental posture 

and to feel responsible for caring for, feeding, and even forgoing meals to ensure 

that Ca.B had food to eat. He frequently missed or was late to school and failed 

to complete his homework. C.B. had violent ideations and mixed emotions 

regarding Mother. Ca.B., on the other hand, was underweight, 

developmentally-delayed, had dietary issues, and was not functioning normally. 

The trial court heard considerable testimony regarding the “trauma” that the 

children suffered due to Mother’s lack of supervision, inattention, and neglect. 

Id. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s substance 

abuse led to the children’s removal from Mother’s care and that there was a 

reasonable probability—given her complacency and failure to engage in any 

related services—that the condition could not be remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05-1711-JT-2788 | July 2, 2018 Page 24 of 24

[27] Mother also asserts that DCS failed to prove that termination of her parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests. “A parent’s historical inability to 

provide adequate housing, stability, and supervision, coupled with a current 

inability to provide the same, will support a finding that termination of the 

parent-child relationship is in the child’s best interests.” Castro, 842 N.E.2d at 

374. The testimony of a child’s guardian ad litem or special advocate or 

professional caseworkers also can be evidence that termination is in a child’s 

best interests. McBride v. Monroe County Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 

185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Both factors are present here: Mother’s inability 

to maintain sobriety, along with testimony from the CASA and the DCS case 

managers opining that termination was in the children’s best interests.6

Conclusion

[28] There is sufficient evidence to support the termination of Mother’s parental 

rights to her children. We affirm.

[29] Affirmed.

[30] Vaidik, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.

 

6 We do not reach Mother’s contention that DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify or preserve her 

family as this is not among the Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) statutory factors.