Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 1 of 17

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Amanda McIlwain

Legal Aid Corporation of

Tippecanoe County

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

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:

A.B. (Minor Child),

and

C.B. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

June 21, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-3110

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Faith A. Graham, 

Judge

The Honorable Tricia L. 

Thompson, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

79D03-1804-JT-48

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 2 of 17

[1] C.B. (Mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parent-child 

relationship with her child, A.B. (Child). Mother argues that there is 

insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the conditions 

resulting in the placement of Child outside Mother’s custody will not be 

remedied, that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to 

Child’s well-being, and that the termination of the parent-child relationship is in 

the child’s best interest. Finding the evidence insufficient, we reverse and 

remand for further proceedings.

Facts

[2] Child was born in January 2011 to Mother and B.B. (Father).1 On April 18, 

2017, the Department of Child Services (DCS) and law enforcement officers 

went to Mother’s home after receiving a report that Child’s half-brother 

(Sibling), who was then three years old, had been neglected due to lack of 

supervision by Mother. When they arrived, Sibling was walking down the 

street unsupervised; Mother was inside, passed out on the couch with burnt 

spice cigarettes near her and within a child’s reach. The officers tried several 

times to wake Mother. Once they did, they arrested her, and DCS placed Child 

and Sibling in relative care. The State charged Mother with Level 6 felony 

 

1

Father is not a party to this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 3 of 17

neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic drug 

or lookalike substance. Mother remained incarcerated until April 22, 2017. 

[3] On April 19, 2017, DCS filed a petition alleging both children to be children in 

need of services (CHINS) based on the above facts.2 On May 15, 2017, a 

factfinding hearing took place, after which the juvenile court adjudicated Child 

to be a CHINS. On May 25, 2017, the juvenile court entered its dispositional 

and parental participation decrees, ordering Mother to participate in parenting 

time, a substance abuse assessment and all recommendations, case 

management, a parenting assessment and all recommendations, random drug 

screens, a mental health evaluation and all recommendations, individual 

counseling and all recommendations, and family therapy and all 

recommendations.

Mother’s Participation with Services and Visits

[4] In May 2017, DCS referred Mother to Bauer Family Resources for parenting 

time and case management. In May and June 2017, Mother participated in 

case management and her parenting visits were positive, with Mother providing 

appropriate care for the children and no safety concerns reported. Mother then

missed multiple visits in July and August 2017. Mother reported that she was 

 

2

Sibling’s father ultimately took custody of him. Sibling is not part of this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 4 of 17

depressed and that her depression was why she disengaged with visitation.

Because Mother missed visits, in August 2017, Bauer closed its services to her. 

[5] In May 2017, DCS referred Mother to Wabash Valley Alliance (WVA) for a 

mental health evaluation, which Mother completed. WVA also recommended 

that Mother participate in individual therapy and family therapy.

[6] On June 13, 2017, Mother completed an intake assessment with an addictions 

counselor at WVA. Mother told the counselor that she had used alcohol in the 

past but that she had never used illegal drugs. Following the assessment, the 

counselor recommended that Mother complete a substance abuse assessment 

and participate in individual counseling for her symptoms of depression.

[7] On July 31, 2017, Mother completed her substance abuse assessment at WVA. 

During the assessment, Mother indicated that she was using alcohol, 

methamphetamine, and opiates, and that she had used methamphetamine three 

days before the assessment. The treatment provider recommended that Mother 

attend an intensive outpatient program (IOP). On September 5, 2017, Mother 

attended one IOP session at WVA; she was later discharged for noncompliance. 

In October 2017, DCS referred Mother to Bauer for another IOP, which 

Mother did not complete. On August 22, 2017, Mother requested a medication 

evaluation; it is unclear from the record whether she received a referral for it. 

[8] On August 30, 2017, the juvenile court stated that Mother’s parenting time may 

continue so long as she submitted to all requested drug screens and refrained 

from using or testing positive for methamphetamine, but that if she tested 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 5 of 17

positive, her parenting time would be immediately suspended and would not 

resume until further order of the juvenile court. After Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamine on September 28, 2017, the juvenile court suspended her 

parenting time. Family Case Manager (FCM) Samantha Goltz testified that 

Mother “was given the opportunity to participate in I believe 30 days of clean 

screens and not be missing any screens” but that Mother did not comply with 

those terms and has not been allowed to visit Child since then. Tr. Vol. II p. 77.

[9] Mother requested that visitation be reinstated. Mother testified that in October 

2017, she requested a Skype or telephone visit if she could not have an inperson visit due to her failing the drug screen. DCS denied her request, 

believing it would be detrimental to Child. In February 2018, DCS denied 

Mother’s request because Mother did not participate in drug screens and had 

not seen Child in a long time. In June 2018, DCS denied Mother visitation 

because of the length of time that had passed since Mother’s last visit with 

Child. DCS never reinstated visits during these proceedings.

[10] In November 2017, DCS referred Mother to case management at Lifeline

Youth and Family Services; Lifeline later discharged her due to lack of contact. 

However, Mother was incarcerated from November 6 through December 16, 

2017, for contempt of court because she failed to pay child support for another 

child. She was then on work release until January 5, 2018. 

[11] FCM Goltz made a referral for a psychological evaluation on March 5, 2018, 

and although Mother was incarcerated again on March 26, 2018, FCM Goltz 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 6 of 17

did not renew the referral because she did not know when Mother would be 

released. Mother’s incarceration, which was for the neglect of a dependent 

charge (to which Mother had pleaded guilty) that led to this case, lasted through 

May 23, 2018. Following her arrest, she was on house arrest through August 1, 

2018. Mother was on probation at the time of the termination hearing.

[12] At the start of these proceedings, Mother was seeking housing because her 

residence at the time was being investigated for mold. She testified that she had 

been living in the same place since November 2017, and at the time of the 

termination hearing, she was facing eviction because the property owners sold 

the building. She testified that she was actively looking for housing, and that if 

she needed to, she could stay with her father or her boyfriend’s mother. As for 

employment, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother was in her second 

month of employment at Steak ‘n’ Shake; she had previously worked for a 

cleaning company. Mother was also taking prescribed medication to treat her 

depression and was working to obtain health insurance. 

Mother’s Drug Use and Screens

[13] DCS referred Mother for drug screens. Mother missed twenty-two screens 

between August 22, 2017, and October 10, 2017. Mother completed eleven 

screens from September 27, 2017, to November 1, 2017, that were negative of 

all substances. On October 13 and 26, 2017, she tested positive for alcohol. On 

September 28, 2017, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 7 of 17

[14] In the three months leading up to the termination hearing, Mother consistently 

participated in drug screens, all of which were clean, and she was still 

participating at the time of the hearing.

3

 FCM Goltz testified that because 

Mother had been incarcerated before the three months in which she consistently

tested clean, Mother could have been clean for approximately five months. 

Mother testified that, at the termination hearing, she was five days shy of five 

months of sobriety.

Child

[15] When this case began, Mother and Child had a bond. Court Appointed Special 

Advocate (CASA) Suzanne Wetzel testified that in June 2017, Mother was 

“loving” and “attentive” toward Child. Tr. Vol. II p. 46. Child has some 

developmental delays that involve irregular social behaviors, including toilet

training delays. She has been diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder and impulse-control disorder. On May 26, 2017, Child completed an 

intake appointment with a therapist who recommended that Child participate in 

case management and medication management to address Child’s behaviors 

and in individual therapy to work on coping skills and establishing boundaries. 

[16] Between September 11 and 22, 2017, Child participated in case management. 

Child struggled to comply with directions, had difficulty transitioning between 

 

3

From May 23 through August 1, 2018, Mother submitted to approximately seven drug screens for her 

criminal case. It is unclear whether she was also screening through DCS.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 8 of 17

activities, and became fearful when it was time to use the restroom. The 

treatment provider was concerned that Child may have suffered from trauma 

that resulted in her fear of using the restroom. CASA Wetzel testified that 

Child has made significant progress both at home and at school and is now able 

to be attentive and stay focused. Her toilet training has improved. Child was 

taking medication for her ADHD and aggression.

[17] Since being removed from Mother’s care, Child has been placed in four foster 

homes and with two relative caregivers. At the time of the termination hearing, 

Child was in relative placement in Florida; she was doing well in that 

placement, and her caregivers were willing to adopt her.

Termination Proceedings

[18] On April 4, 2018, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship 

between Mother and Child. DCS stopped funding services for Mother in June 

2018 because Mother was not participating in services. A factfinding hearing 

took place on June 27 and August 22, 2018. During the hearing, FCM Goltz 

testified that termination was in Child’s best interest because Child is in a stable 

and loving environment and is doing well. CASA Wetzel also recommended 

termination based on Mother’s failure to comply with services and her lack of 

participation in Child’s life; she also testified that termination was in Child’s 

best interest because Child is thriving in her current placement and that 

disruption would be detrimental to her. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 9 of 17

[19] On November 21, 2018, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the 

relationship. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[20] Our standard of review with respect to termination of parental rights 

proceedings is well established. In considering whether termination was 

appropriate, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. 

K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 989 N.E.2d 1225, 1229 (Ind. 2013). We will 

consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that may be drawn 

therefrom in support of the judgment, giving due regard to the trial court’s 

opportunity to judge witness credibility firsthand. Id. Where, as here, the trial 

court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set aside the 

findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. In making that 

determination, we must consider whether the evidence clearly and convincingly 

supports the findings, and the findings clearly and convincingly support the 

judgment. Id. at 1229-30. It is “sufficient to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that the child’s emotional and physical development are threatened by 

the respondent parent’s custody.” Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 

839 N.E.2d 143, 148 (Ind. 2005).

[21] Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) requires that a petition to terminate 

parental rights for a CHINS must make the following allegations:

(A) that one (1) of the following is true:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 10 of 17

(i) The child has been removed from the parent for at least 

six (6) months under a dispositional decree.

(ii) A court has entered a finding under IC 31–34–21–5.6 

that reasonable efforts for family preservation or 

reunification are not required, including a description of 

the court's finding, the date of the finding, and the manner 

in which the finding was made.

(iii) The child has been removed from the parent and has 

been under the supervision of a local office or probation 

department for at least fifteen (15) months of the most 

recent twenty-two (22) months, beginning with the date 

the child is removed from the home as a result of the child 

being alleged to be a child in need of services or a 

delinquent child;

(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.

(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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 11 of 17

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

the child.

DCS must prove the alleged circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. 

K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1230.

II. Drug Screens

[22] Initially, we address an issue raised by neither of the parties. The trial court’s 

order included this finding of fact:

15. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine on July 17, 

2017, July 31, 2017, and September 28, 2017. Mother tested 

positive for alcohol on two (2) drug screens in October 2017. 

Mother failed to submit to numerous drug screens as requested.

Appealed Order p. 3. DCS submitted evidence regarding Mother’s drug screens 

through an exhibit, which included affidavits from a “Certifying Scientist and 

Custodian of Records” for a toxicology laboratory and a “custodian of the 

records” for another laboratory and Mother’s drug screen results. Appellee’s 

Ex. Vol. III p. 4-49. DCS did not elicit expert testimony regarding these drug 

screens during the termination hearing.

[23] As we have recently stated, exhibits containing drug test results do not fall 

under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay and, although 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 12 of 17

Mother did not make a hearsay objection,4the exhibit should have been 

inadmissible as hearsay. See Matter of L.S., — N.E.3d — at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. 

May 21, 2019). Admission of this evidence requires expert testimony and the 

opportunity for cross-examination. Accordingly, the trial court erred by 

admitting the exhibit into evidence and by relying on them in its order.

III. Remedy of Conditions

[24] Mother first argues that DCS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence

that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in Child’s 

removal will not be remedied. Child was initially removed from Mother 

because of concerns of neglect and substance abuse.

[25] When this case began, Mother “was wanting to work on getting her 

relationship back with [Child] and being – and getting life back.” Tr. Vol. II p. 

42. Child’s therapist testified that “for all intents and purposes at that time 

[Mother] had good intentions.” Id. CASA Wetzel testified that in June 2017, 

Mother was “loving” and “attentive” toward Child. Id. at 46. 

[26] Although Mother suffered a relapse with her drug use and was twice 

incarcerated during these proceedings, by the time of the termination hearing, 

Mother had completed a mental health assessment, a substance use assessment,

 

4 Mother objected to the admission of this exhibit because the exhibit did not include all of Mother’s screens 

throughout the proceedings, but instead included screens only through June 2018. We admonish DCS to be 

thorough in its submission of evidence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 13 of 17

and, during her incarceration, a psychological evaluation. She also had 

complied with her criminal case. By the time of the termination hearing, 

Mother had maintained sobriety for at least three months, if not longer. She 

also had stable employment for two months, had applied for health insurance, 

and had addressed her mental health needs by visiting her doctor and starting 

medication. Although the State argues that Mother likely will be unable to 

maintain her sobriety long-term without treatment, Mother has maintained her 

sobriety even after DCS stopped funding services in June 2018.

[27] Moreover, Mother missed some of her services because she was incarcerated. 

Specifically, in November 2017, DCS referred Mother to case management at 

Lifeline; Lifeline later discharged her due to lack of contact. However, Mother 

was incarcerated from November 6 through December 16, 2017, for contempt 

of court because she failed to pay child support for another child. Similarly, 

when Mother did not complete the psychological evaluation that FCM Goltz

referred for her because of her incarceration, FCM Goltz did not renew the 

referral because she did not know when Mother would be released. It is well 

established that incarceration is an insufficient basis for terminating parental 

rights, K.E. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641, 643 (Ind. 2015), and 

we decline to hold against Mother her inability to participate in referred services 

because she was incarcerated.

[28] As for Mother’s living environment, Mother testified that she has been living in 

the same place since November 2017, her incarcerations notwithstanding. At 

the time of the termination hearing, she was facing eviction because the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 14 of 17

property owners sold the building. She testified that she was actively looking 

for housing, and that if she needed to, she could stay with her father or her 

boyfriend’s mother. We find no evidence in the record to contravene Mother’s 

testimony that she has had or will have appropriate housing. Indeed, neither 

FCM Goltz nor CASA Wetzel had visited Mother’s residence.

[29] Under these circumstances, there is not clear and convincing evidence 

supporting the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that 

the reasons for Child’s placement outside of Mother’s care and custody will not 

be remedied.

IV. Child’s Well-Being

[30] Because the statute is phrased in the disjunctive, we must also consider whether 

DCS established by clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable 

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

to Child’s well-being.

[31] The trial court did not cite any specific facts to support its conclusion that the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child’s wellbeing. The trial court simply stated that the “child needs stability in life. The 

child needs parents with whom the child can form a permanent and lasting 

bond and who will provide for the child’s emotional, psychological, and 

physical well-being. The child’s well-being would be threatened by keeping the 

child in parent-child relationships with Mother . . . .” Appealed Order p. 4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 15 of 17

[32] At the start of this case, Mother and Child were bonded. A Bauer report from 

July 2017 noted that Mother “has a bond with [Child] and [Sibling]; as 

evidence by her interactions with [Sibling] and [Child] during parenting time 

and how [Sibling] and [Child] run and hug [Mother] upon seeing her during 

parenting time.” Appellee’s Ex. Vol. II p. 68. That same report indicated that 

Mother appropriately engaged with and took care of the children. 

[33] The State contends that Mother failed to complete the actions necessary to 

resume visitation with Child. It is accurate that Mother was advised that if she 

continued to test positive for methamphetamine, her visits with Child would be 

suspended; after Mother tested positive and the juvenile court suspended her 

visits, the juvenile court provided that Mother would be able to resume visits if 

she submitted clean drug screens for thirty days, but Mother failed to do so.

[34] Yet the record is clear that Mother wanted another chance so she could 

maintain her bond with Child—and DCS refused to give Mother this chance. 

DCS justified its decision in part by arguing that the visits would be traumatic 

to Child based on the length of time that had passed since Child had last seen 

Mother. Yet Mother was unable to rectify that potential issue because DCS 

denied her any additional visitation. Moreover, DCS did not explain why the 

passage of time between visits would make another visit traumatic for Child. 

Considering that Child was placed in six different homes throughout these 

proceedings, we find DCS’s reasoning puzzling. Indeed, it is hard to 

understand how seeing a parent with whom she has a bond could be more 

traumatic than bouncing from placement to placement. To terminate a parent-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 16 of 17

child relationship based on the circular logic that DCS employed in this case

regarding visitation is not a result that we can sanction.

[35] In short, the record does not hold clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable 

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

to Child’s well-being.

V. Child’s Best Interests

[36] Finally, we consider the general question of what is in Child’s best interests. 

Stability and consistency are important for every child. Throughout these 

proceedings, Mother has made noteworthy improvements with her sobriety and 

personal stability. Mother and Child had a bond when this case began. Mother

has exerted herself to remedy her situation and become a better caregiver. 

Mother wants to have a relationship with Child and wants to parent Child. 

[37] CASA Wetzel testified that she believed that termination was in Child’s best 

interest because Child was thriving in her current placement and the disruption 

would be “extremely detrimental to her.” Tr. Vol. II p. 48. It seems, then, that 

DCS recommended termination based on the grounds that Child needs stability 

and would be harmed by yet another placement. Yet the record is devoid of 

evidence that Child would be affected if termination were delayed to give 

Mother an opportunity to maintain her sobriety, participate in services, and 

resume visitation with Child, nor is there evidence that Child’s current 

caregivers’ willingness to adopt her would be affected by putting off 

termination.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-JT-3110 | June 21, 2019 Page 17 of 17

[38] We acknowledge that Mother must continue to build a stable, sober life, 

participate in services, and preserve her bond with Child. Yet, based on the 

record, we simply cannot say that clear and convincing evidence exists that, at 

this point, the termination of this relationship is in Child’s best interests.5

[39] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

 

5 Mother also argues that DCS violated her due process rights by filing a petition to terminate her parental 

rights despite not providing appropriate services. Because we addressed her concerns regarding those services 

in our discussion of the substantive issues, we need not also address them as procedural errors.