Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 1 of 13

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

Michael B. Troemel

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Involuntary 

Termination of the Parent-Child 

Relationship of J.H. (Minor 

Child), and

D.H. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

December 20, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-1663

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Superior Court

The Honorable Faith A. Graham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79D03-1712-JT-133

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 13

Case Summary

[1] D.H. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating her 

parental rights to her minor child, J.H. She argues that the evidence is 

insufficient to support the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. 

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2016, J.H. was removed from the care of Mother and J.H., Sr.

(“Father”),

1 on an emergency basis due to allegations of abuse and/or neglect. 

The Tippecanoe County Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a child in 

need of services (“CHINS”) petition regarding J.H. and, following a hearing, 

J.H. was adjudicated a CHINS. A dispositional decree was entered in May 

2016, and while the initial permanency plan was reunification, that plan 

subsequently changed to termination and adoption in November 2017. 

Following a termination hearing, the trial court made the following relevant 

findings of fact: 2

1. Mother (DOB 06/01/1985) is the Mother and Father(DOB 

07/09/1982)is the Father of J.H. (DOB 01/08/2016).

....

 

1 The trial court also terminated Father’s parental rights as part of its order here, but Father does not 

participate in this appeal. 

2 The trial court’s order references the parents and the minor child by their full names at times, and refers 

often to J.H. simply as “the child.” We use “Mother,” “Father,” and “J.H.” where appropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 13

5. The reasons for the third CHINS case[3]included ongoing 

concerns related to drug use after J.H. tested positive for 

methamphetamine on February 15, 2016. Both Mother and 

Father denied drug use but were unable to provide an 

explanation for the child’s exposure to methamphetamine....

6. J.H. was placed in protective custody pursuant to a CHINS 

Detention Hearing Order issued on February 29, 2016. At that 

time, Mother was seventeen (17) weeks pregnant. A CASA was 

appointed to represent the best interests of J.H. J.H. was found 

to be a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and a dispositional 

order was issued on May 20, 2016. J.H. has remained out of the 

parents’ care continuously since that date except for an 

unsuccessful trial home visit. In fact, J.H. has been out of the 

care of parents for over fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two 

(22) months.

....

8. During the third CHINS case, Mother was offered the 

following services: abuse assessment and treatment, parenting 

assessment, case management, random drug screens, and 

parenting time. Mother was offered additional services including 

parent education, individual therapy, medication management, 

domestic violence assessment.... These services have been 

exhaustive and have been designed to address the difficulties that 

resulted in J.H.’s removal and continued placement outside the 

home.

....

10. At the onset of the third CHINS case, the parents were 

 

3 Because Father had been involved in two prior CHINS proceedings regarding his three older children, for 

clarity, the trial court’s termination order refers to the underlying CHINS proceeding here as “the third 

CHINS case.” Appealed Order at 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 13

married and residing together. Neither parent was employed, 

neither had housing, and both were dependent upon others to 

meet their own needs let alone the needs of J.H.

11. Initially, both parents maintained contact with DCS and 

commenced assessments as required. The parents participated in 

services as recommended and regularly attended parenting time 

as scheduled. Father still struggled with substance use. After the 

parents obtained an appropriate residence, by order issued

January 9, 2017, J.H. was placed with Mother on a trial home 

visit conditioned upon Father vacating the family home and 

adhering to a safety plan. Father was subsequently authorized to 

return to the home and participate in the trial home visit.

12. During the trial home visit, concerns arose regarding 

substance use. Father tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids 

due to using “spice” twice daily. Father failed two (2) drug 

screens for alcohol, in February 2017 and March 2017. Mother 

tested positive for marijuana in June 2017. Mother admitted 

Father was using “spice” even when Father’s drug screens 

returned negative. Mother’s medication counts were not 

consistent with Mother’s prescriptions. Mother appeared to be 

under the influence when the children were in Mother’s care 

demonstrated by slurred speech and inability to focus. There 

were also reports of domestic violence in the home.

13. The trial home visit was terminated on July 5, 2017 after 

Father was arrested in the family home. A large amount of spice 

and a one-hitter pipe was observed on a table in plain view. 

Despite Mother and J.H. being in the home at the time of 

Father’s arrest, Mother denied observing said items. Mother 

admitted taking more than the prescribed amount of her 

medication. DCS also took custody of the younger sibling (Ja.H.) 

born during the third CHINS case who is not a subject of this 

termination proceeding. Mother has other prior born children 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 13

(ages 9 and 11) who reside in the care of their father and who are 

not subjects of this termination proceeding.

14. After the trial home visit was terminated, participation of the 

parents in services declined. Mother filed for divorce in July 

2017. The family was evicted on August 10, 2017. Father was 

incarcerated from September 1, 2017 to November 6, 2017. 

Mother admitted herself for inpatient mental health treatment on 

November 16, 2017 due to depression and homicidal ideations. 

Upon release from the hospital on November 24, 2017, Mother

disappeared until approximately January 5, 2018 during which 

time Mother failed to maintain contact with DCS, failed to 

participate in services, and failed to attend any visits after 

November 10, 2017. Father was arrested again on February 17, 

2018 and has since remained incarcerated.

15. A permanency hearing was held on November 16, 2016 at 

which time the permanent plan remained reunification. A second 

permanency hearing was held on February 3, 2017 at which time 

the permanent plan remained reunification. A third permanency 

hearing was held on May 15, 2017 at which time the permanent 

plan remained reunification. A final permanency hearing was 

held on November 29, 2017 at which time the permanent plan 

was determined to be the initiation of proceedings for 

termination of parental rights and adoption.

16. DCS filed its petitions in the above-referenced cause on 

December 11, 2017. The evidentiary hearing on the Verified 

Petitions to Terminate Parental Rights was held on March 7, 

2018.

17. Mother has a history of unstable housing with four (4) or five 

(5) prior evictions. During most of the third CHINS case, Mother 

periodically resided with Maternal Grandmother, in her vehicle, 

and with various friends. Mother admitted Maternal 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 6 of 13

Grandmother, Maternal Step Grandfather, and Maternal Aunt 

were all drug users who would steal Mother’s medication.

18. Mother was prescribed a variety of medications at different 

times. At times, Mother was adamant she was taking 

medications as prescribed although she also reported a lapse in 

obtaining such medication due to an insurance issue. Mother 

allowed medication counts but there were frequently either more 

or less pills than expected according to the prescription. At times, 

Mother admitted forgetting to take medications as well as 

intentionally taking more of certain medications. Mother was 

observed to be under the influence at times demonstrated by 

swaying, inability to stand, slurred speech, slow reactions, and 

memory loss. Mother has at least two (2) other prior mental 

health admissions for suicidal ideations. Mother reports 

attending private therapy since June 2015.

19. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had been 

residing with a boyfriend since January 2018 who provides 

Mother with transportation. The boyfriend conducts 

maintenance at his apartment complex in exchange for rent. 

Mother obtained employment at various locations but failed to 

maintain a long-term position. Mother failed to consistently 

provide verification of employment or work schedules. At the 

time of the termination hearing, Mother reported employment at 

a grocery store starting January 28, 2018 but again failed to 

provide verification.

20. Mother completed a substance abuse assessment. Mother 

consistently denied drug use despite testing positive for “spice” 

and marijuana. During the third CHINS case, Mother tested 

positive for the presence of drugs on 9/26/2016 (synthetic 

cannabinoids), 11/14/2016 (tramadol), 11/15/2016 (tramadol), 

12/19/2016 (tramadol), 12/28/2016 (tramadol), 01/10/2017 

(tramadol), 04/21/2017 (oxycodone), 04/26/2017 (oxycodone), 

06/05/2017 (marijuana), 06/30/2017 (alprazolam), 08/17/2017 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 7 of 13

(tramadol), 08/18/2017 (tramadol), 08/21/2017 (tramadol), 

08/24/2017 (synthetic cannabinoids), 08/28/2017 (synthetic 

cannabinoids), 09/06/2017 (synthetic cannabinoids), 

09/26/2017 (alprazolam/tramadol), October 10, 2017 

(alprazolam/tramadol), October 19, 2017 (tramadol), 

11/01/2017 (tramadol), 11/02/2017 (alprazolam), 11/08/2017 

(tramadol), 11/11/2017 (hydrocodone/tramadol), 11/27/2017 

(tramadol) and 02/19/2018 (tramadol). Mother failed to take all 

drug screens as requested.

21. Mother has not successfully completed any service. Mother 

participated in case management including parenting education. 

Since July 2017, Mother failed to attend sessions regularly and 

little progress was made. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged 

from case management services.

22. Mother completed a parenting assessment and participated in 

parenting education. Mother was not receptive to parenting 

education or redirection during parenting time. Mother 

demonstrated angry and aggressive behaviors with Father and, at 

times, with the children who would then scream themselves. For 

example, Mother stated at a visit that she would stab 

Grandmother in the heart for cutting the children’s hair. Mother 

was observed co-sleeping with the younger child despite safety 

warnings. On some occasions, Mother’s visits were ended early 

when Mother failed to provide necessary supplies. Mother was 

discharged from fully-supervised parenting time in approximately 

October 2017 due to lack of consistent attendance.

23. After resurfacing in January 2018, Mother resumed 

participation in home-based case management, private 

therapy/medication management, and random drug screens. 

However, Mother has maintained very limited contact with 

DCS. Mother’s parenting time is fully supervised at a facility 

twice per week for three (3) hours each visit. Mother’s recent reengagement and short-term improvement does not outweigh an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 8 of 13

otherwise long-term demonstrated pattern of instability and 

neglect.

Appealed Order at 2-5.

[3] Based upon these findings of fact, the trial court concluded that: (1) there is a 

reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in J.H.’s removal and 

continued placement outside the home will not be remedied by Mother; (2) 

there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the relationship 

between Mother and J.H. poses a threat to his well-being; (3) termination of the 

parent-child relationship between Mother and J.H. is in his best interests; and

(4) DCS has a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of J.H., which is 

adoption. Accordingly, the trial court determined that DCS had proven the 

allegations of the petition to terminate parental rights by clear and convincing 

evidence and therefore terminated Mother’s parental rights. This appeal

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[4] “The purpose of terminating parental rights is not to punish the parents but, 

instead, to protect their children. Thus, although parental rights are of a 

constitutional dimension, the law provides for the termination of these rights 

when the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental 

responsibilities.” In re A.P., 882 N.E.2d 799, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citation 

omitted). “[T]ermination is intended as a last resort, available only when all 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 9 of 13

other reasonable efforts have failed.” Id. A petition for the involuntary 

termination of parental rights must allege in pertinent 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 well-being of the 

child.

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

adjudicated a child in need of services;

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

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

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS must prove that termination is appropriate by 

a showing of clear and convincing evidence. In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1144 

(Ind. 2016). If the trial court finds that the allegations in a petition are true, the 

court shall terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(a).

[5] “We have long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases involving 

the termination of parental rights.” C.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 15 N.E.3d 

85, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

We neither reweigh evidence nor assess witness credibility. We 

consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 10 of 13

the trial court’s judgment. Where the trial court enters findings 

of fact and conclusions thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard 

of review: we first determine whether the evidence supports the 

findings and then determine whether the findings support the 

judgment. In deference to the trial court’s unique position to 

assess the evidence, we will set aside a judgment terminating a 

parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous.

Id. at 92-93 (citations omitted). “A judgment is clearly erroneous if the findings 

do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do not support 

the judgment.” In re R.J., 829 N.E.2d 1032, 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 

[6] Mother challenges the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable 

probability that the conditions that led to J.H.’s removal and continued 

placement outside the home will not be remedied.4 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 [his] placement 

and retention in foster care.” Id. Second, “we ‘determine whether there is a 

reasonable probability that those conditions will not be remedied.’” Id. 

 

4 Mother also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that there is a 

reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to J.H.’s wellbeing. However, Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, such that, to properly 

effectuate the termination of parental rights, the trial court need only find that one of the three requirements 

of that subsection has been established by clear and convincing evidence. A.D.S. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 

987 N.E.2d 1150, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Accordingly, we will address the sufficiency of the 

evidence regarding only one of the three requirements.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 11 of 13

(quoting In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1132, 1134 (Ind. 2010) (citing In re A.A.C., 682 

N.E.2d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997))). 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.’” In re E.M., 4 

N.E.3d 636, 643 (Ind. 2014) (quoting K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1231). “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. The evidence presented by DCS “need not 

rule out all possibilities of change; rather, DCS need establish only that there is 

a reasonable probability that the parent’s behavior will not change.” In re Kay 

L., 867 N.E.2d 236, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[7] The record indicates that J.H. was initially removed from the parents’ care 

because he tested positive for methamphetamine, they lacked stable housing, 

and the parents depended on others for support. Although Mother did make 

some progress in services which led to J.H.’s return to her care for a trial home 

visit, J.H. was again removed in July 2017 due to Mother testing positive for 

marijuana, Mother abusing her prescription medication, Father’s drug use in 

the home, and domestic violence between Mother and Father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 12 of 13

[8] Rather than challenging any of the trial court’s specific findings of fact, Mother

simply blames Father for J.H.’s initial removal from the home as well as the 

failed trial home visit and asserts that the evidence indicates that there is a 

reasonable probability that conditions will be remedied because she has now 

divorced Father. First, we reject Mother’s attempt to minimize the ample 

evidence of her own harmful behavior which led to J.H.’s removals and 

continued placement outside of her care. Specifically, the evidence shows that 

Mother failed to successfully complete any service, has never demonstrated 

receptivity to parenting education, and has consistently denied her own drug 

use despite testing positive on multiple occasions. Moreover, at the time of the 

termination hearing, although Mother claimed recent progress and reengagement in services, the trial court noted that Mother had maintained very 

limited contact with DCS and continued to fail to provide proof of stable 

employment. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court concluded that 

Mother’s recent re-engagement and short-term improvement did not outweigh 

an otherwise long-term demonstrated pattern of instability and neglect. This 

was the trial court’s prerogative, and we decline Mother’s invitation to reweigh 

the evidence and second-guess that conclusion. See E.M., 4 N.E.3d at 643 

(noting that trial court is entrusted with this “delicate balance” and “has 

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

shortly before termination.”). Clear and convincing evidence supports the trial 

court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

led to J.H.’s removal and continued placement outside Mother’s care will not 

be remedied, and therefore the trial court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-1663 | December 20, 2018 Page 13 of 13

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental 

rights.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.