Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 1 of 23

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

A. David Hutson

Hutson Legal

Jeffersonville, Indiana

John L. Grannan

Assistant Public Defender

Clark County Public Defender’s Office

Jeffersonville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Abigail R. Recker

Robert J. Henke

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 K.C., Mother, D.C., Father, 

and D.C., D’A.C., Da.C., and 

K.C., Children,

K.C.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Department of Child

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

November 12, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JT-685

Appeal from the 

Clark Circuit Court

The Honorable 

Vicki L. Carmichael, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

10C04-1808-JT-31

10C04-1808-JT-32

10C04-1808-JT-33

10C04-1808-JT-34
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 23

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] K.C. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental 

rights to her children, D.C., D’A.C., Da.C., and K.C. (“Children”). Mother 

raises several issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as: 

I. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it 

admitted drug screen results under the business records 

exception to the rule against hearsay; and

II. Whether the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to Children was clearly erroneous because 

(A) the evidence did not support the findings of fact and 

(B) the findings of fact did not support the juvenile court’s 

conclusions that there was a reasonable probability that 

the conditions that resulted in Children being removed and 

placed outside of Mother’s care would not be remedied 

and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the 

best interests of Children.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] Mother and D.C. (“Father”)1 are the parents of D.C., born January 27, 2008, 

D’A.C., born December 8, 2010, Da.C., born October 21, 2012, and K.C., born 

November 20, 2013. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 36, 40, 44, 48. Mother also has a 

1

Father’s parental rights were also terminated on February 22, 2019 in the same order that terminated 

Mother’s parental rights. However, Father does not join in this appeal. We will, therefore, confine the facts 

to only those pertinent to Mother’s appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 23

sixteen-year-old daughter, M.M., who was not the biological daughter of 

Father. Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. 

[4] In 2014, Mother became involved with the Indiana Department of Child 

Services (“DCS”) because she was dealing marijuana out of her home while 

Children were present. Id. at 61. At that time, Children were removed from 

Mother’s care for several months, and when they were returned to Mother’s 

care, there was no running water or electricity. Id. at 9. At that time, there was 

also domestic violence occurring in the home, where Father would hit and 

choke Mother. Id. at 8. 

[5] In May 2016, DCS received a report alleging Children were victims of neglect 

because Mother and a friend were parenting Children while under the influence 

of illegal substances. Id. at 61. DCS removed Children2from Mother’s care on 

May 13, 2016, after Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and 

amphetamine. Ex. Vol. 3 at 33; Tr. Vol. 2 at 61-62. Father was incarcerated at 

that time for charges relating to domestic violence between him and Mother. 

Tr. Vol. 2 at 85-86. Mother had a history of DCS involvement due to her drug 

use and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on May 7, 

2016. On May 16, 2016, DCS filed petitions alleging that Children were 

children in need of services (“CHINS”) due to Mother’s substance abuse issues 

and her admission that she wanted to kill herself. Ex. Vol. 3 at 24-27, 75-78, 

2 Although M.M. was also removed from Mother’s care at the same time as Children, the record is unclear as 

to why M.M. was not a part of the termination proceedings at issue. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 4 of 23

130-33, 186-89. On June 2, 2016, Mother admitted that Children were CHINS 

due to her substance abuse issues, which required treatment. Id. at 6, 34, 85, 

140, 196. On June 14, 2016, the juvenile court entered its order adjudicating 

Children as CHINS, and on August 20, 2016, it entered its dispositional decree 

and order of participation. Id. at 6-7, 8. The juvenile court ordered Mother to 

maintain contact with the Family Case Manager (“FCM”), keep all 

appointments with service providers, participate and complete an intensive 

family preservation program, complete a substance abuse assessment and 

follow all recommended treatment, submit to random drug screens, maintain 

suitable housing, and attend all scheduled visitations. Id. at 36-41, 87-92, 142-

47, 198-203. 

[6] Mother “had a lengthy history of using substances” and had used drugs since 

she was a teenager. Tr. Vol. 2 at 97. In November 2016, after being referred by 

DCS, Mother completed a substance abuse assessment with Danielle Blair 

(“Blair”), a clinical therapist. Id. at 96. During the assessment, Mother 

“presented with anxiety and depression symptoms[,] and . . . she . . . admitted 

to marijuana use at that time.” Id. at 97. Mother also had a “lengthy history of 

domestic violence and early childhood trauma.” Id. at 102. Blair 

recommended that Mother participate in individual therapy to address 

substance use, triggers, and coping skills; case management; parenting 

education; and more education on substance use.” Id. at 98. Blair believed that 

without treatment, Mother would continue to have problems with substance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 5 of 23

abuse because Mother “was presenting with little coping skills or ability to 

manage her emotions,” and “she needed more support.” Id. 

[7] In December 2016, Mother began treatment with Blair with the goals being to 

address past trauma, establish coping skills and emotion regulation, understand 

the link between her personal history and substance use, and develop a recovery 

and management safety plan. Id. at 98-99. Mother’s participation in treatment 

was not consistent; there were periods where she would engage in treatment 

consistently for weeks or a month, and then her participation would “[f]all off.” 

Id. at 99. There were several times when Mother was incarcerated and unable 

to attend. Id. Blair was able to provide treatment to Mother during her 

incarceration, but not as consistently as when she was not incarcerated. Id. It 

was difficult for Blair to manage Mother’s recovery without long-term 

consistent treatment. Id. at 100. The last time Blair met with Mother was when 

she saw her in the Clark County Jail in November 2018. Id. at 99. 

[8] While the present case was pending, Mother frequently tested positive for illegal 

substances, and in November 2017, the juvenile court, after a hearing on the 

parents’ progress, found that Mother had ten positive drug screens since May 

2017 and had refused two screens since September 2017. Ex. Vol. 3 at 52-54, 

214-16. The State filed petitions to revoke Mother’s probation, in part, because 

she tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on September 11 

and October 4, 2017. Ex. Vol. 4 at 39-41, 62, 68. Mother admitted that she did 

not refrain from drug use prior to her incarceration and that she would have 

“spurts where [she] would be clean” and then would relapse. Tr. Vol. 2 at 4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 6 of 23

[9] On January 31, 2017, Mother was charged with Level 6 felony possession of 

methamphetamine, Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and 

Level 6 felony auto theft. Ex. Vol. 4 at 24, 33-36. On April 17, 2017, Mother 

pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 

felony auto theft and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of two years with 

one year suspended to probation. Id. at 27, 37. Several petitions to revoke 

probation were filed against Mother because she tested positive for illegal 

substances and failed to comply with substance abuse treatment. Id. at 28-31, 

39-41, 43, 57-60, 63-66. As a result of these petitions to revoke, Mother’s 

suspended sentence was revoked, and she was serving that sentence at the time 

of the termination proceedings. Tr. Vol. 2 at 41-44. During the CHINS and 

termination proceedings, Mother was also charged with several more offenses, 

including Level 6 felony escape, Level 6 felony possession of 

methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 

felony possession of a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor possession of a 

synthetic drug or lookalike substance, Class C misdemeanor possession of 

paraphernalia, Level 6 felony theft, and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized 

entry of a motor vehicle. Ex. Vol. 4 at 73, 78, 90, 98. 

[10] Supervised visitation between Mother and Children began in July or August 

2016, and Mother was mainly compliant and regularly participated, missing 

approximately one visit per month. Tr. Vol. 2 at 68, 124. Children enjoyed 

seeing Mother, and there were no major concerns during visitation. Id. at 124. 

The referral was closed in November 2017 when Mother was incarcerated. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 7 of 23

at 68, 124. In January 2018, after Mother was released from jail, Children’s 

therapist, Nina Fox (“Fox”), took over supervising visitations between Mother

and Children. Id. at 23-24. Mother was supposed to contact Fox to schedule 

visits, but she failed to do so, and then she became incarcerated again. Id. at 24. 

The only visitation that Fox supervised between Mother and Children occurred 

during the summer of 2018 at the jail while Mother was incarcerated. Id. at 22, 

24. That visitation was the last time Children saw Mother. Id. at 24. 

[11] Since the beginning of the CHINS case, Children received therapeutic services 

from Fox. Id. at 21. She has sessions with Children once or twice a week, and 

she met with Children both individually and as a group. Id. at 28-29. Fox 

worked with Children on emotional stability because they had been through a 

lot of trauma and had attachment, anger, and behavioral issues. Id. at 21. 

Following the visit between Children and Mother in jail, Fox had to work with 

Children on anger and grief and dealing with the rejection of not having Mother 

in their lives. Id. at 25. 

[12] On August 9, 2018, DCS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to 

Children. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 36-51. On January 8 and 15, 2019, the 

juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on the petitions. Id. at 7, 13-14, 19-

20, 25-26. At the time of the hearing, Mother was incarcerated in part for the 

probation revocations that were filed against her, and she had been incarcerated 

for approximately eight months. Tr. Vol. 2 at 40. Mother testified that her 

release date was in May 2019. Id. at 41. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 8 of 23

[13] At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Children had been placed in the same 

foster home and were doing well. Id. at 62-63. At the hearing, Fox testified 

that she believed it was in Children’s best interests to remain in their current 

foster home and for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated because Children 

have gone through this “rollercoaster ride” long enough. Id. at 25. The FCM 

testified that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Children’s best 

interests because Children have been removed from Mother’s care for a total 

time of almost four years, including their removal in the prior DCS case, and 

Children are currently in a home that allows them to do normal activities and 

that “is the best thing for them moving forward.” Id. at 69-71. The court 

appointed special advocate (“CASA”) also recommended the termination of 

Mother’s parental rights because Children were in a loving home that provided 

them with stability, and she testified that she believed that termination was in 

Children’s best interests. Id. at 131. DCS’s plan for Children upon the 

termination of parental rights was adoption. Id. at 71. 

[14] At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under 

advisement. On February 22, 2019, the juvenile court issued its order 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children. Mother now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Evidence

[15] Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted 

certified drug screens from Forensic Fluid Laboratories and Redwood 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 9 of 23

Toxicology. The admission of evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of 

the juvenile court. In re A.F., 69 N.E.3d 932, 941-42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. 

denied. We will find an abuse of discretion only where the juvenile court’s 

decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the 

court. Id. at 942. “If a juvenile court abuses its discretion by admitting the 

challenged evidence, we will reverse for that error only if the error is 

inconsistent with substantial justice or if a substantial right of the party is 

affected.” Id. 

[16] Mother contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to 

admit DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14, her drug test results, which were admitted 

over her objection, because they were hearsay. Specifically, Mother asserts that 

the exhibits did not qualify as business records and were, therefore, not 

admissible under that exception. She maintains that the exhibits were not 

business records because the drug test results were documented for the benefit 

of DCS and the laboratories that produced the reports do not depend on the 

records to function.3 

3 Mother relies on a recent opinion of this court for her argument, In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2019). In that case, a panel of this court found that the reports of the mother’s drug test results did not fall 

under the business records exception because it was not shown that the laboratory that produced the reports 

depended on the records to operate or conduct business, and instead, the drug test results were documented 

for the benefit of DCS, necessitating expert testimony and the opportunity for cross-examination for the 

admission of the evidence. Id. at 634. However, the court went on to find that the admission of the drug test 

results was harmless because the trial court’s judgement was supported by substantial independent evidence. 

Id. DCS brings to our attention another recent case from a different panel of this court, where drug test 

results were found to fall under the business records exception because the laboratory functions 

independently from any law enforcement body or state agency. In re K.R., No. 19A-JT-478, 2019 WL 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 10 of 23

[17] Assuming, without deciding, that it was error for the juvenile court to introduce 

DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 under the business records exception to the rule 

against hearsay, we conclude that it was harmless error. “‘The improper 

admission of evidence is harmless error when the judgment is supported by 

substantial independent evidence to satisfy the reviewing court that there is no 

substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the 

judgment.’” In re L.S., 125 N.E.3d 628, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting In re 

E.T., 808 N.E.2d 639, 645 (Ind. 2004)). Here, the juvenile court’s judgment, as 

discussed below, was supported by substantial evidence independent of these 

exhibits that satisfy us that its determination stands without reliance on those 

exhibits. 

II. Findings and Conclusions

[18] As our Supreme Court has observed, “Decisions to terminate parental rights are 

among the most difficult our trial courts are called upon to make. They are also 

among the most fact-sensitive -- so we review them with great deference to the 

trial courts[.]” E.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 4 N.E.3d 636, 640 (Ind. 2014). 

While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects 

the traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise her child and 

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

termination of those rights when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet her 

4678411, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2019). Because we determine that any error in admitting the evidence 

in the present case was harmless, we do not reach the possible conflict between these two cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 11 of 23

responsibility as a parent. Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 839 

N.E.2d 143, 145 (Ind. 2005); In re T.F., 743 N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2001), trans. denied. Parental rights are not absolute and must be subordinated 

to the child’s interests in determining the appropriate disposition of a petition to 

terminate the parent-child relationship. In re J.C., 994 N.E.2d 278, 283 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013). The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the 

parent but to protect the child. In re D.P., 994 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013). Termination of parental rights is proper where the child’s emotional and 

physical development is threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until 

the child is irreversibly harmed such that his physical, mental, and social 

development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child 

relationship. Id.

[19] When reviewing a termination of parental rights case, we will not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 

149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Instead, we consider only the evidence and 

reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the judgment. Id. Moreover, 

in deference to the trial court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will 

set aside the court’s judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is 

clearly erroneous. Id. at 148-49. A judgment is clearly erroneous only if the 

legal conclusions made by the juvenile court are not supported by its findings of 

fact, or the conclusions do not support the judgment. In re S.P.H., 806 N.E.2d 

874, 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 12 of 23

[20] Where, as here, the juvenile court entered specific findings and conclusions, we 

apply a two-tiered standard of review. In re B.J., 879 N.E.2d 7, 14 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2008), trans. denied. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the 

findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. 

Id. A finding is clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts or 

inferences drawn therefrom that support it. Id. If the evidence and inferences 

support the trial court’s decision, we must affirm. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child 

Servs., 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[21] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, the State 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 13 of 23

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 

H.L., 915 N.E.2d at 149. Moreover, if the court finds that the allegations in a 

petition described in section 4 of this chapter are true, the court shall terminate 

the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a) (emphasis added). 

A. Findings Not Supported by the Evidence

[22] Mother first argues that sixteen of the juvenile court’s findings are merely 

recitations of testimony and are, therefore, improper findings of fact. Under 

Indiana Code section 31-35-2-8(c), a juvenile court “shall enter findings of fact 

that support the entry of the conclusions” to terminate the parent-child 

relationship. “‘A court or an administrative agency does not find something to 

be a fact by merely reciting that a witness testified to X, Y, or Z. Rather, the 

trier of fact must find that what the witness testified to is the fact.’” Moore v. 

Jasper Cty. Dep’t of Child Servs., 894 N.E.2d 218, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

(quoting In re T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). “Additionally, 

the trier of fact must adopt the testimony of the witness before the ‘finding’ may 

be considered a finding of fact.” In re T.J.F., 798 N.E.2d at 874. This rule 

ensures that the parties “know the evidentiary bases upon which the ultimate 

finding rests” and “enable[s] [them] to formulate intelligent and specific 

arguments on review.” Id. (citing Perez v. U.S. Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29, 32 

(Ind. 1981)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 14 of 23

[23] Mother is correct that sixteen of the juvenile court’s findings of fact4 appear to 

be a mere recitation of the evidence presented. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 28, 

29, 32. However, these findings of fact are proper because the juvenile court 

found the cited testimony of the witnesses that was set forth in the findings of 

fact to be true and it adopted the testimony as such. Before setting forth its 

findings of fact, the juvenile court specifically stated, “The Court finds the 

following facts and reasonable inferences of fact by clear and convincing 

evidence.” Id. at 28. Therefore, the juvenile court, in its order, notified Mother 

as to “the evidentiary bases upon which the ultimate finding rests.” In re T.J.F., 

798 N.E.2d at 874. 

[24] Mother next argues that nineteen other findings of fact are not valid because 

there is no evidentiary support without DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. 

Specifically, she asserts that findings 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 58 should not be considered by this court because 

they have no evidentiary support in the record.

5

 DCS concedes that, with the 

exclusion of DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14, findings 31, 35, 36, 38, 41, 44, 45, 49, 

50, 52, and 53 are not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. 

4 We note that four of these sixteen findings do not refer to Mother and are solely related to Father.

5

In her Appellant’s Brief, Mother also argues that finding 33 does not have evidentiary support; however, in 

her Reply Brief, she concedes that finding 33 was not based on DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14, and therefore, 

can be considered in our determination. Appellant’s Br. at 16; Reply Br. at 7. We also note that finding 58 

only relates to drug use by Father and, therefore, does not pertain to the termination of Mother’s parental 

rights. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 31.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 15 of 23

[25] However, findings 32, 34, 43, 51, 54, and 55 were supported by evidence that 

was independent from DCS Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. Findings 32 and 34 state 

that on both November 20 and 28, 2016, Mother tested positive for 

amphetamine and methamphetamine. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 29. The FCM 

testified without any objection that Mother tested positive for amphetamine and 

methamphetamine on November 20 and 28, 2016. Tr. Vol. 2 at 86-87. Finding 

43 states that on June 6, 2017, Mother tested positive for alcohol and 

buprenorphine, and finding 51 states that on July 13, 2017, Mother tested 

positive for alcohol and opiates. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 30. The records from 

the underlying CHINS cases show that Mother tested positive for alcohol and 

Suboxone [buprenorphine] on June 6, 2017 and that she tested positive for 

alcohol and Hydrocodone on July 13, 2017.6 Ex. Vol. 3 at 14, 15, 176, 177. 

Findings 54 and 55 state that on both September 11 and October 4, 2017, 

Mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. 2 at 30. DCS Exhibit 7, which consisted of records of a probation 

revocation filed against Mother, supported this finding. Ex. Vol. 4 at 40, 44-45, 

62, 68. 

6 At the beginning of its order, the juvenile court took judicial notice of its own previous findings and orders 

in the underlying CHINS cases and the records from the underlying CHINS cases were admitted into 

evidence at the evidentiary hearing without any objection. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 27; Tr. Vol. 2 at 6. Under 

Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of records of other court proceedings, and if 

those records are included in the record on appeal, they can be relied upon by a party in making its 

arguments. In re D.K., 968 N.E.2d 792, 796-97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 16 of 23

B. Conclusions Not Supported by the Findings

[26] Mother first argues that the juvenile court’s findings did not support its 

conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

resulted in Children’s removal and continued placement outside of the home 

would not be remedied. She asserts that the juvenile court’s findings do not 

support that her drug use would not be remedied because many of the findings 

were not valid, and those that were, are not sufficient to support the conclusion 

that conditions will not be remedied because they did not establish “a pattern 

that created a probability of future neglect.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. 

[27] In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

led to a child’s removal and continued placement outside the home will not be 

remedied, we engage in a two-step analysis. K.T.K. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 

989 N.E.2d 1225, 1231 (Ind. 2013). First, we must ascertain what conditions 

led to the child’s placement and retention in foster care, and, second, we 

determine whether there is a reasonable probability that those conditions will 

not be remedied. Id. In the second step, the trial court must judge a parent’s 

fitness at the time of the termination proceeding, taking into consideration 

evidence of changed conditions and balancing a parent’s recent improvements 

against “‘habitual pattern[s] of conduct to determine whether there is a 

substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.’” E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643

(quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). Pursuant to this rule, “trial courts have 

properly considered evidence of a parent’s prior criminal history, drug and 

alcohol abuse, history of neglect, failure to provide support, and lack of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 17 of 23

adequate housing and employment.” In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011). In addition, DCS need not provide evidence ruling out all 

possibilities of change; rather, it need establish only that there is a reasonable 

probability the parent’s behavior will not change. In re Involuntary Termination 

of Parent-Child Relationship of Kay L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

“We entrust that delicate balance to the trial court, which has discretion to 

weigh a parent’s prior history more heavily than efforts made only shortly 

before termination.” E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643. When determining whether the 

conditions for the removal would be remedied, the trial court may consider the 

parent’s response to the offers of help. D.B., 942 N.E.2d at 873.

[28] Here, the conditions that led to Children’s removal was neglect related to 

Mother’s substance abuse. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 28. As a result of the 

CHINS adjudication, Mother was ordered to maintain stable housing, not use 

illegal drugs, obey the law, participate in intensive family preservation services, 

participate in home-based counseling, complete a substance abuse assessment, 

complete random drug screens, follow all terms of probation, and participate in 

visitation. Id. at 36-41, 87-92, 142-47, 198-203. However, the evidence 

presented at the evidentiary hearing showed that Mother failed to accomplish 

many of these objectives.

[29] DCS provided Mother with substance abuse treatment through Blair, but 

Mother failed to consistently attend treatment. Tr. Vol. 2 at 96-99. Mother 

completed a substance abuse assessment with Blair, who recommended that 

Mother participate in individual therapy to address substance use, triggers, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 18 of 23

coping skills; case management; parenting education; and more education on 

substance use.” Id. at 98. Blair believed that without treatment, Mother would 

continue to use illegal substances because she would not have the “coping skills 

or ability to manage her emotions.” Id. Mother began treatment in December 

2016; however, it was difficult for Blair to manage Mother’s recovery without 

long-term consistent treatment. Id. at 98, 100. There were periods where 

Mother would engage in treatment consistently for a month, and then her 

participation would “[f]all off,” and Mother’s stints of incarceration made her 

unable to attend treatment. Id. at 99. The last time Blair met with Mother was 

when she saw her in the Clark County Jail in November 2018. Id. 

[30] Mother “had a lengthy history of using substances” and had used drugs since 

she was a teenager. Id. at 97. Evidence was presented that Mother continued 

to struggle with substance abuse and continued to use drugs. As discussed 

above, evidence was presented to show that throughout the proceedings, she 

tested positive for illegal drugs and alcohol, beginning in November 2016 and 

continuing until at least October 2017. Additionally, Mother engaged in 

multiple drug-related criminal activities while the termination proceedings were 

pending. In April 2017, Mother pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of 

methamphetamine and Level 6 felony auto theft. Ex. Vol. 4 at 27, 37. Several 

petitions to revoke probation were filed against Mother because she tested 

positive for illegal substances and failed to comply with substance abuse 

treatment. Id. at 28-31, 39-41, 43, 57-60, 63-66. As a result of these petitions to 

revoke, Mother’s suspended sentence was revoked, and she was incarcerated at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 19 of 23

the time of the termination proceedings and still had approximately four 

months to serve. Tr. Vol. 2 at 41-44. Mother was also charged with numerous 

other charges, including Level 6 felony escape, two counts of Level 6 felony 

possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug, 

Class A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic drug or lookalike substance, 

Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, Level 6 felony theft, and 

Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. Ex. Vol. 4 at 73, 

78, 90, 98. 

[31] Further, Mother did not consistently maintain contact with her FCM, and 

although the evidence showed that Mother participated in some visitations with 

Children, she was not consistent in doing so due to her frequent incarceration. 

Tr. Vol. 2 at 68, 69, 124. DCS is not required to rule out all possibilities of 

change; it need only establish that there is a reasonable probability the parent’s 

behavior will not change. In re Kay L., 867 N.E.2d at 242. “A pattern of 

unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and to cooperate with those 

providing social services, in conjunction with unchanged conditions, support a 

finding that there exists no reasonable probability that the conditions will 

change.” Lang v. Starke Cty. Office of Family & Children, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Also, as we have recognized, “Even 

assuming that [the parent] will eventually develop into a suitable parent, we 

must ask how much longer [the child] should have to wait to enjoy the 

permanency that is essential to her development and overall well-being.” Castro 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 20 of 23

v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. 

denied. 

[32] At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Children had been removed from the 

home, and DCS had been working with Mother for almost three years, and 

Mother had barely complied with any of the services provided by DCS. She 

had not remedied her substance abuse issues and had only minimally 

participated in other services. This failure to consistently participate in services 

in order to reunify with Children, as well as Mother’s continued use of drugs 

and engagement in criminal activity, supported the juvenile court’s conclusion 

that there was a reasonable probability Mother would not remedy the 

conditions resulting in Children’s removal and continued placement outside her 

care. 

[33] Mother next argues that the juvenile court’s findings did not support its 

conclusion that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of 

Children. She contends that, contrary to the juvenile court’s finding, the 

evidence did not support that the FCM, Children’s therapist, and CASA 

recommended that termination was in the best interests of Children. Mother 

further asserts that the totality of the evidence did not support the juvenile 

court’s conclusion because there was undisputed evidence that Children were 

bonded with Mother and that Mother interacted appropriately with Children 

during visitations, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that Children 

would be harmed by continued placement with the foster family until Mother 

could be reunited with them. Mother also points to testimony from Children’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 21 of 23

therapist and the FCM that seemed to suggest that Children should continue to 

have a relationship with Mother. 

[34] In determining what is in the best interests of the child, a trial court is required 

to look at the totality of the evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 224 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010) (citing In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. 

denied), trans. dismissed. In doing so, the trial court must subordinate the 

interests of the parents to those of the child involved. Id. Termination of a 

parent-child relationship is proper where the child’s emotional and physical 

development is threatened. Id. (citing In re R.S., 774 N.E.2d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2002), trans. denied). A parent’s historical inability to provide a suitable, 

stable home environment along with the parent’s current inability to do so 

supports a finding that termination is in the best interests of the child. In re A.P. 

981 N.E.2d 75, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Testimony of the service providers, in 

addition to evidence that the conditions resulting in removal will not be 

remedied, are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that 

termination is in the child’s best interests. In re A.S., 17 N.E.3d 994, 1005 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[35] A juvenile court need not wait until a child is irreversibly harmed such that his 

or her physical, mental, and social development is permanently impaired before 

terminating the parent-child relationship. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d at 224. 

Additionally, a child’s need for permanency is an important consideration in 

determining the best interests of a child. Id. (citing McBride v. Monroe Cty. Office 

of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d 185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 22 of 23

[36] At the time of the termination hearing, Children had been removed from 

Mother’s care for almost three years, and Mother had failed to make the 

changes necessary to provide Children with a safe and healthy environment. 

As discussed above, DCS presented sufficient evidence that there was a 

reasonable probability that Mother would not remedy the reasons for Children’s 

removal from her care because she continued to use drugs and engage in 

criminal activity. Further, at the time of the evidentiary hearing, Mother was 

incarcerated in part for activity related to drugs. Additionally, the FCM and 

the CASA, as well as the Children’s therapist, all testified that they believed 

termination of Mother’s parental rights would be in Children’s best interests. 

Tr. Vol. 2 at 25, 69-70, 131. The FCM testified that she believed Children were 

entitled to permanency and being in the foster home was the best thing for 

Children “moving forward.” Id. at 71. The CASA testified that she 

recommended that Mother’s parental rights be terminated because Children 

were entitled to stability and a caring home, which the foster home was 

providing. Id. at 131. Based upon the totality of the evidence, we conclude that 

the evidence supported the juvenile court’s determination that termination of 

Mother’s parental rights was in Children’s best interests. Mother’s arguments 

to the contrary are a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. In re 

H.L., 915 N.E.2d at 149. 

[37] Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the juvenile court’s 

termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children was clearly erroneous. We, 

therefore, affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-685 | November 12, 2019 Page 23 of 23

[38] Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.