Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Dorothy Ferguson

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

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 O.B.;

A.B. (Mother),

Appellant,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee.

April 27, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1709-JT-2306

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable G. George Pancol, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C02-1701-JT-3

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 2 of 9

Statement of the Case

[1] A.B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of the parent-child relationship with 

her daughter (“O.B.”), claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support the 

termination because the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) failed to prove 

by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that resulted in O.B.’s 

removal will not be remedied. Concluding that there is sufficient evidence to 

support the trial court’s decision to terminate the parent-child relationship, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of 

the parent-child relationship.

Facts

[3] O.B. was born in April 2004. In April 2013, O.B.’s aunt and uncle became her 

guardians (“Guardians”). In June 2015, Mother moved to Mississippi and left 

O.B. with Guardians. Mother was using drugs at the time and did not have a 

stable residence. One month later, in July 2015, Guardians took O.B. to a 

relative’s home and explained that they would no longer be able to keep O.B. in 

their home because of her inappropriate behavior. Guardians explained that 

 

1 O.B.’s father has never been identified.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 3 of 9

O.B. had threatened to kill herself and wished that other people would die. She

was also refusing to take her insulin as prescribed and was admitted to the 

hospital because of her high blood sugar. After O.B. was discharged from the 

hospital, DCS Family Case Manager Kaneshia Tinker (“FCM Tinker”) 

contacted Mother and informed her that O.B. was no longer living with 

Guardians. When FCM Tinker asked Mother to return to Indiana to begin 

visiting O.B., Mother hung up the telephone. 

[4] That same day, DCS filed a petition alleging that O.B. was a child in need of 

services (“CHINS”). Following a November 2015 fact finding hearing, the trial 

court adjudicated O.B. to be a CHINS. In a December 2015 dispositional 

order, the trial court ordered Mother to: (1) complete a substance abuse 

assessment; (2) submit to random drug screens; (3) obtain stable employment 

and housing; and (4) participate in home-based counseling. The trial court also 

ordered DCS to begin an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children 

(“ICPC”) so that Mother could be evaluated for services and placements in 

Mississippi. 

[5] DCS completed the ICPC in February 2016. While Mississippi was evaluating 

whether it was going to accept the ICPC, Mother returned to Indiana.2 She 

visited DCS Case Manager Kaylee Jones (“Case Manager Jones”) in August 

2016 and asked for visitation, home based services, and therapy. Mother 

 

2 Mississippi denied the ICPC in September 2016. Apparently officials in Mississippi could not find Mother. 

When they went to her home address, a man answered the door and would not let them into the house. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 4 of 9

submitted a drug screen, which tested positive for cocaine and alcohol. 

Children’s Bureau Home-Based Case Manager Amy Newton (“Case Manager 

Newton”) attempted to set up referrals for Mother in October 2016, but 

Mother’s telephone was turned off, and DCS had no idea where Mother was 

living at the time. Mother was subsequently “closed out [of the program]

unsuccessfully.” (Tr. 16). 

[6] After Mother failed to participate in services, DCS filed a petition in January 

2017 to terminate her parental rights. Testimony at the June and August 2017 

fact finding hearings on the termination petition revealed that Case Manager 

Jones had not had any contact with Mother from August 2016 until February 

2017, when Case Manager Jones had been able to reach Mother by telephone 

and notify her about the initial termination hearing. Mother explained that she 

had returned to Mississippi. According to Case Manager Jones, Mother had 

not complied with any of the court-ordered services. Further, Case Manager 

Jones had “no idea” where Mother was living in Mississippi. (Tr. 52). 

According to Case Manager Jones, Mother had previously lived with her sister 

and “been on the road in a semi driving with another man.” (Tr. 53-54). Case 

Manager Jones explained that Mother was “very transient,” which was 

“completely unstable for [O.B.]” (Tr. 53). 

[7] The testimony further revealed that O.B. had had only sporadic contact with 

Mother on Facebook Messenger. O.B.’s therapist, Abbie Rust (“Therapist 

Rust”), testified that O.B. was “typically . . . the one reaching out.” (Tr. 19). 

Therapist Rust explained that “continued contact [was] definitely harmful to . . 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 5 of 9

. [O.B.]” because O.B. had the expectation that Mother would respond 

appropriately and continuously. However, Mother frequently failed to respond. 

One time, Mother’s friend told O.B. that Mother was “in an unsafe place.” (Tr. 

20). According to Therapist Rust, such information was “harmful to [O.B.,]”

who had struggled with anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. (Tr. 20). 

[8] At the time of the hearing, O.B. was in foster care in a preadoptive placement. 

She was “maintaining her diabetes” and doing well in school. (Tr. 51). The 

plan for her care was adoption. Case Manager Jones and Court-Appointed 

Special Advocate Becky Douglas (“CASA Douglas”) both testified that 

termination was in O.B.’s best interest. 

[9] Also at the hearing, Mother testified telephonically that she had a house in 

Mississippi but did not have a job. When asked why she was not in Indiana, 

Mother stated, “I got no I.D. I can’t get on the bus. I got nowhere to go if I go 

back to Indiana.” (Tr. 69). Mother admitted that she had not participated in 

any court-ordered services. 

[10] Following the hearing, pursuant to O.B.’s request, the trial court judge 

conducted an in camera interview with O.B. In August 2017, the trial court 

issued a detailed eight-page order that terminated Mother’s parental 

relationship with O.B. Mother appeals. 

Decision

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

traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. In re 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 6 of 9

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. 2013). However, the law provides for 

termination of that right when parents are unwilling or unable to meet their 

parental responsibilities. In re Bester, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). The 

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

their children. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. 

denied.

[12] When reviewing the termination of parental rights, we will not weigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1229. 

Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support 

the judgment. Id. Where a trial court has entered findings of fact and 

conclusions thereon, we will not set aside the trial court’s findings or judgment 

unless clearly erroneous. Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)). In determining 

whether the court’s decision to terminate the parent-child relationship is clearly 

erroneous, we review the trial court’s judgment to determine whether the 

evidence clearly and convincingly supports the findings and the findings clearly 

and convincingly support the judgment. Id. at 1229-30.

[13] A petition to terminate parental rights must allege:

(B) that one (1) of the following is true:

(i) There is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in the child’s removal or the reasons for 

placement outside the home of the parents will not be 

remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 7 of 9

(ii) There is a reasonable probability that the continuation 

of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the wellbeing of the child.

(iii) The child has, on two (2) separate occasions, been 

adjudicated a child in need of services;

(C) that termination is in the best interests of the child; and

(D) that there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of 

the child.

IND. CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by 

clear and convincing evidence. K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231.

[14] Here, Mother argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the 

termination of her parental rights. Specifically, she contends that the evidence 

is insufficient to show that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions 

that resulted in O.B.’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the parent’s 

home will not be remedied; and (2) a continuation of the parent-child 

relationship poses a threat to O.B.’s well-being.

[15] However, we note that INDIANA CODE § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the 

disjunctive. Therefore, DCS is required to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence only one of the three requirements of subsection (B). In re A.K., 924 

N.E.2d 212, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. dismissed. We therefore discuss 

only whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted 

in O.B.’s removal or the reasons for her placement outside Mother’s home will 

not be remedied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 8 of 9

[16] In determining whether the conditions that resulted in a child’s removal or 

placement outside the home will not be remedied, we engage in a two-step 

analysis. In re E.M., 4 N.E.3d 636, 642-43 (Ind. 2014). We first identify the 

conditions that led to removal or placement outside the home and then 

determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will 

not be remedied. Id. at 643. The second step requires trial courts to judge a 

parent’s fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into 

consideration evidence of changed conditions and balancing any recent 

improvements against habitual patterns of conduct to determine whether there 

is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation. Id. The trial court 

may also consider services offered to the parent by DCS and the parent’s 

response to those services as evidence of whether conditions will be remedied. 

A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), 

trans. denied. Requiring trial courts to give due regard to changed conditions 

does not preclude them from finding that a parent’s past behavior is the best 

predictor of her future behavior. E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. 

[17] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that O.B. was placed outside the home 

when Guardians could no longer manage her behavior or her diabetes. O.B. 

could not return to Mother’s care because Mother was in Mississippi and 

showed no interest in returning to Indiana to visit or care for O.B. After O.B. 

was adjudicated to be a CHINS, DCS attempted to set up an ICPC so that 

Mother could receive services in Mississippi. However, officials in Mississippi 

could not locate Mother. Although Mother eventually returned to Indiana, she 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-JT-2306 | April 27, 2018 Page 9 of 9

failed to participate in any of the court-ordered services. The one drug screen 

that she submitted tested positive for cocaine and alcohol. At the time of the 

termination hearing, Mother had returned to Mississippi and had no plans to 

return to Indiana. Also at the time of the hearing, O.B. was in foster care in a 

preadoptive placement. She was maintaining her diabetes and doing well in 

school. Both Case Manager Jones and CASA Douglas testified that 

termination was in O.B.’s best interests. This evidence supports the trial court’s 

conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

resulted O.B.’s removal would not be remedied. We find no error. 

[18] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.