Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 1 of 15

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

Melinda K. Jackman-Hanlin

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Termination 

of the Parent-Child Relationship 

of R.M. & D.M. (Children) and 

W.M. (Father);

W.M. (Father),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 25, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JT-168

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court

The Honorable Karen M. Love, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D03-1703-JT-9

32D03-1703-JT-10
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 2 of 15

May, Judge.

[1] W.M. (“Father”) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to 

R.M. and D.M. (collectively, “Children”). Father argues the Department of 

Child Services (“DCS”) did not present sufficient evidence the conditions under 

which Children were removed from Father’s care would not be remedied; the 

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to Children’s wellbeing; and termination of parental rights was in Children’s best interests. We 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] A.H. (“Mother”)1 and Father are the biological parents of R.M. and D.M., born 

January 3, 2005, and July 29, 2009, respectively. On September 7, 2015, DCS 

received a report that Children were home alone without adequate food and 

that Mother and her boyfriend used methamphetamine. Father did not live 

with Mother and had “limited contact with the [C]hildren.” (Ex. Vol. V at 81.)

[3] DCS filed a petition to adjudicate Children as Children in Need of Services 

(“CHINS”) on September 22, 2015. The initial plan was in-home placement

with a safety plan; however, on September 23, Children were removed from 

Mother’s home because Mother continued to use methamphetamine. On 

October 7, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the CHINS petition and 

 

1 Mother’s parental rights to Children were also terminated. She does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 3 of 15

Mother admitted Children were CHINS. On November 18, 2015, Father 

admitted Children were CHINS, and they were adjudicated as such.

[4] Also on November 18, the trial court entered its dispositional decree, ordering 

Father, who also had an open CHINS case in Putnam County regarding two of 

his other children, to participate in reunification services, including: obey the 

law, refrain from using illegal substances, complete a substance abuse 

assessment and follow all recommendations, provide random drug screens, 

attend visitation with Children, complete required services in the Putnam 

County case, participate in the Fatherhood Engagement program, and continue 

to work with Cummins Behavioral Health to address his mental health needs.

Father was compliant with services for an extended period of time, and the 

court allowed a trial home visit on April 13, 2016. Children were placed with 

Father until July 5, 2016, when Father tested positive for methamphetamine 

and amphetamine. Children have been in foster care since that time.

[5] On September 21, 2016, the trial court held a permanency hearing during which 

the court approved a concurrent plan of reunification and adoption. Father was 

arrested for possession of methamphetamine in November 2016. At a review 

hearing on December 19, 2016, the trial court noted Father had not complied 

with services, had not visited Children, and had not cooperated with DCS. In 

January 2017, Father was arrested for domestic violence, with Mother as the

victim. On March 14, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental 

rights to Children of both Mother and Father. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 4 of 15

[6] In May 2017, Father was arrested for Class C misdemeanor possession of 

paraphernalia; in June 2017, Father was arrested for intimidation and resisting 

arrest; in July 2017, Father was arrested for invasion of privacy. Father was 

incarcerated in the Putnam County jail at the time of the termination factfinding hearing. His probation officer testified Father had been on probation 

since 2013 but had failed to successfully complete a probationary term. On 

May 31 and July 13, 2017, the trial court held fact-finding hearings on DCS’s 

termination petition. On December 26, 2017, the trial court issued its order 

involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Children.

Discussion and Decision

[7] We review termination of parental rights with great deference. In re K.S., D.S., 

& B.G., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We will not reweigh 

evidence or judge credibility of witnesses. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence and 

reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment. Id. In deference to the 

juvenile court’s unique position to assess the evidence, we will set aside a 

judgment terminating a parent’s rights only if it is clearly erroneous. In re L.S., 

717 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied

534 U.S. 1161 (2002).

[8] “The traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children is 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In 

re M.B., 666 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. A trial court must 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 5 of 15

subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children, however, when 

evaluating the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 

at 837. The right to raise one’s own children should not be terminated solely 

because there is a better home available for the children, id., but parental rights 

may be terminated when a parent is unable or unwilling to meet parental 

responsibilities. Id. at 836.

[9] To terminate a parent-child relationship, the State must allege and prove:

(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

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

the child.

Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). The State must provide clear and convincing proof 

of these allegations. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009), reh’g 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 6 of 15

denied. If the court finds the allegations in the petition are true, it must 

terminate the parent-child relationship. Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8. 

[10] When, as here, a judgment contains specific findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of 

Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 147 (Ind. 2005). We determine whether the 

evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. 

Id. “Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to 

support them either directly or by inference.”2 Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 

98, 102 (Ind. 1996). If the evidence and inferences support the juvenile court’s 

decision, we must affirm. In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 208. 

[11] Father challenges the trial court’s conclusions that the conditions under which 

Children were removed were not likely to be remedied and continuation of the 

parent-child relationship posed a threat to Children’s well-being. As Indiana 

Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, we need only 

decide if the trial court’s conclusion supports one of these requirements. See In 

re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 209 (because statute written in disjunctive, court needs to 

find only one requirement to terminate parental rights). Father also argues 

termination is not in Children’s best interests.

 

2 Herein, Father does not challenge the trial court’s findings, and thus we accept them as true. See Madlem v. 

Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind. 1992) (“Because Madlem does not challenge the findings of the trial court, 

they must be accepted as correct.”). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 7 of 15

Reasonable Probability Conditions Would Not Be Remedied

[12] The trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for the child at the time of 

the termination hearing. In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

Evidence of a parent’s pattern of unwillingness or lack of commitment to 

address parenting issues and to cooperate with services “demonstrates the 

requisite reasonable probability” that the conditions will not change. Lang v. 

Starke Cty. OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 

[13] When assessing a parent’s fitness to care for a child, the trial court should view 

the parents as of the time of the termination hearing and take into account the 

changes that have occurred during the proceedings. In re C.C., 788 N.E.2d 847, 

854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. However, the trial court must also 

“evaluat[e] the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct to determine the 

probability of future neglect or deprivation of [a] child.” In re J.T., 742 N.E.2d 

509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. 

[14] Father argues termination is not warranted because he “was not a contributing 

factor as to the removal of the children,” (Br. of Appellant at 9), and because he 

has demonstrated prolonged periods of sobriety. However, while we do review 

the changes in the conditions under which Children were removed from a 

parent’s care, we also consider “those bases resulting in continued placement 

outside the home.” In re A.I., 825 N.E.2d 798, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. 

denied. Father does not challenge the trial court’s findings supporting its 

conclusion that the conditions under which Children were removed from 

Mother’s care would not be remedied, which include:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 8 of 15

89. Ariel Irwin Peel has been the Family Case Manager for 

[Children] since October 27, 2015. Court finds Family Case 

Manager, Irwin Peel, is experienced, credible and thorough in 

her work. Simultaneous to this case in Hendricks County, Father 

had 2 CHINS cases for his younger children [De. and W.] in 

Putnam County where he lives.

90. Father has failed to contact Family Case Manager, Irwin 

Peel, weekly when he has been out of jail. Family Case 

Manager, Irwin Peel, has reached out and consistently attempted 

to contact Father. Since July 2016, Father has been in and out of 

jail at least five times.

91. When these cases first started, Father was participating in 

services with Putnam County DCS and he progressed positively 

to the point that the children were placed with him for a trial 

home visit on April 13, 2016. Father failed to show for random 

drug screens in June, 2016. Family Case Manager, Irwin Peel, 

made an unannounced visit to Father’s home on June 27, 2016, 

and he tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine 

for a screen on June 27, 2016. On July 5, 2016, Family Case 

Manager, Irwin Peel, went to the home and Father denied using 

methamphetamine but admitted he used spice. Family Case 

Manager, Irwin Peel, could not attempt a safety plan with Father 

because he didn’t think he had a problem.

92. Family Case Manager, Irwin Peel, ended Father’s trial home 

visit on July 5, 2016. Since the trial home visit ended, Father has 

continued to use methamphetamine and has been in and out of 

jail for probation violations on new charges at least five times.

93. Father has been very difficult to contact. When Father was 

in jail, Family Case Manager, Irwin Peel, met with him and gave 

him her contact information to contact her when he was released 

from jail. When he was released, Father would take weeks to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 9 of 15

contact Family Case Manager, Irwin Peel. Father did not have a 

phone at times and it was difficult to contact him to discuss 

services or request he provide drug screens. Father would not 

follow up with appointments for services or visits with [Children] 

and would end up getting arrested again.

* * * * *

96. A schedule for Father was set up to visit [Children]. Father 

had eight or nine visits scheduled in August 2016. Father only 

attended one visit.

97. Father had seven visits scheduled in September 2016 and 

Father failed to show up at all. Ms. Branson [Putnam County 

Family Case Manager] attempted to contact Father to get the 

visits confirmed. She later learned he was incarcerated.

98. When Father was released from incarceration he did not 

attempt to contact Ms. Branson to set up visits with [Children]. 

Ms. Branson continued to try and schedule visits for Father when 

he was not in jail.

99. Ms. Branson attempted to contact Father in November 2016 

but he did not respond to her attempts.

100. In December 2016, Father was with Mother. Father came 

into the Cummins [Behavioral Health] office to get documents 

for his probation but made no efforts to speak with Ms. Branson 

or set up a visit with [Children]. Father had no visits in 

December 2016.

101. Ms. Branson was only able to successfully supervise one 

visit for Father despite having approximately twenty visits 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 10 of 15

scheduled and despite her providing him with a written schedule 

of his visits.

102. Father was unsuccessfully discharged from supervised visits 

and parenting skills in December 2016 once Father was 

incarcerated again.

103. In January 2017, Father completed a substance abuse 

assessment with Deanne Collins at the Hamilton Center. Father 

admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana. Father also 

admitted to having visual and auditory hallucinations, high 

anxiety, and depression.

104. Ms. Collins recommended Father participate in the Matrix 

program, attend individual counseling, and meet with the nurse 

practitioner to obtain mental health medications if needed. The 

[M]atrix program is a substance abuse program in Putnam 

County.

105. Ms. Collins informed Father of her recommendations at the 

end of his assessment. Father understood the recommendations 

and made a follow-up appointment to begin the services.

106. Father did not appear for his follow up appointment and 

never participated in the services recommended by Ms. Collins 

and never met with the nurse practitioner.

107. Father was unsuccessfully discharged from services due to 

failure to participate.

* * * * *

134. Neither parent has shown a real investment in reunification. 

At the time of the termination hearing, Mother’s circumstances 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 11 of 15

had not improved since [Children] were removed from her care. 

Father’s circumstances had deteriorated significantly since the 

dispositional hearing.

135. Nether parent can provide [Children] with a safe and stable 

home. Neither parent can meet [Children’s] physical needs for 

housing. Neither parent can meet [Children’s] mental health 

needs for a safe and stable home with consistent supervision and 

therapy. It is not safe for [Children] to be in the care of Mother 

or Father at this time. 

(App. Vol. II at 24-8.) The trial court also included almost twenty findings 

outlining Father’s criminal history relevant to this time period.

[15] We recognize Father’s early compliance with services resulted in a trial home 

visit that lasted a few months. However, since Children were removed from 

Father’s care in July 2016, Father has not complied with services, did not visit 

Children, tested positive for illegal substances multiple times, was arrested 

multiple times, and was incarcerated with no clear release date at the time of 

the termination fact-finding hearing. The trial court’s unchallenged findings 

support its conclusion that the conditions under which Children were removed 

from Mother and Father’s care would not be remedied.3

 See In re L.S., 717 

N.E.2d at 210 (“A pattern of unwillingness to deal with parenting problems and 

 

3 As we conclude the findings support the trial court’s determination that the conditions that kept Children 

from returning to Father would not be remedied, we need not determine whether the findings also supported 

the trial court’s determination that continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the wellbeing of the children. See, e.g., In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d at 209 (court needs find only one as statute written in 

the disjunctive). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 12 of 15

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.”).

Best Interests of Children

[16] In determining what is in Children’s best interests, the juvenile court is required 

to look beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the 

evidence. In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d 212, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. dismissed. 

A parent’s historical inability to provide a suitable environment, along with the

parent’s current inability to do so, supports finding termination of parental 

rights is in the best interests of the child. In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 990 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The recommendations of a DCS case manager and courtappointed advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that 

conditions resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show by 

clear and convincing evidence that termination is in Children’s best interests. In 

re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 

[17] Father argues termination is not in the best interests of Children because 

Children have a bond with Father’s younger children, who are subject to 

separate CHINS proceedings, and “it would be detrimental for [Children] to be 

split from their other siblings.” (Br. of Appellant at 13.) Father also contends 

“he is willing to actively engage and effectively use the services recommended 

to him to properly care for his children and not put his children at risk for 

harm.” (Id. at 14.) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 13 of 15

[18] Regarding the best interests of Children, the trial court found:

44. [Children have] been participating in therapy with Dr. Rose 

Fernandez for approximately one year.

45. Dr. Fernandez is working with [R.M.] on anxiety. [R.M.] 

has a lot of anxiety around Mother and Mother’s instability and 

Mother’s safety particularly when Mother misses visits with 

[Children]. [R.M.] was diagnosed with anxiety disorder which 

means her worries are greater than the normal child.

46. [R.M.] has anxiety and guilt about being placed in foster 

care. [R.M.] is afraid if she misbehaves the current foster family 

will send her back. [R.M.] is making progress on this concern

now that she has been in her current foster placement for an 

extended period of time.

47. [R.M.] is making progress in therapy now that she has a 

stable consistent environment in her current foster family. 

[R.M.] is very attached to her current foster Mother, Kathleen. 

The stability and consistency in the current foster home has 

helped ease some of [R.M.s] anxiety. [R.M.] is not ready to be 

discharged from therapy with Dr. Fernandez. If [R.M.] were 

placed in a situation where the living situation was not stable and 

consistent she could suffer setbacks.

48. [D.M.] is receiving therapy for his disruptive and defiant 

behaviors and ADHD. [D.M.] has no insight into how his 

behaviors impact him or others. [D.M.] has not made much 

progress.

49. Consistent discipline is important in addressing [D.M.’s] 

problematic behaviors. Without consistency [D.M.] is likely to 

continue to be disruptive at school, with other children and

[with] his family.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 14 of 15

50. [D.M.] is also receiving therapy to work on appropriate 

expression of emotions. [D.M.] became very upset when Father 

went back to jail and said he wanted to kill himself. The 

therapist and foster mother are working with [D.M.] to 

understand that [it] is ok for him to be sad instead of turning all 

of his emotions into a reason to be defiant and destructive.

51. The foster mother has consistently brought [Children] to 

therapy and she actively participates in the sessions including 

implementing suggestions from Dr. Fernandez in the home. This 

active participation by the foster mother has allowed [Children] 

to make progress in therapy.

52. If [Children] were placed with a caregiver that was not 

actively engaged in their therapy and did not implement the 

therapist’s suggestions in the home environment [Children’s] 

progress would be set back.

53. If [D.M.] were placed back in a home with domestic violence 

he would continue to demonstrate defiant and destructive 

behaviors instead of learning to express his emotions in a healthy 

and constructive way.

54. [Children] have higher needs than a typical child meaning 

they will require more adult supervision. A stable environment is 

very important. Moving [Children] around could cause 

attachment issues, depression and trauma.

(App. Vol. II at 19-20.) Additionally, the trial court noted Children “live with 

their younger two (2) siblings in care of the current foster family.” (Id. at 29.)

[19] In addition to the findings regarding Children’s progress in foster care and their 

need for consistency, the trial court found Father had not participated in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-168 | July 25, 2018 Page 15 of 15

services, had not engaged in domestic violence services, had rendered multiple 

positive drug screens, and had been incarcerated for a significant time during 

the proceedings. The trial court’s unchallenged findings support its conclusion 

that termination was in Children’s best interests. See A.D.S. v. Indiana Dept. of 

Child Services, 987 N.E.2d 1150, 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (termination in 

Children’s best interests based on Children’s improvement in foster care and 

Mother’s inability to complete services and maintain sobriety), trans. denied. 

Conclusion

[20] We conclude the trial court’s unchallenged findings support its conclusions that 

the conditions under which Children were removed from Father’s care would 

not likely be remedied and that termination was in Children’s best interests. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

[21] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.