Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 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

Megan Shipley

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

James D. Boyer

Attorneys General of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Termination of the ParentChild Relationship of:

M.M. (Minor Child),

and

S.M. (Mother),

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

The Indiana Department of 

Child Services,

Appellee-Petitioner.

December 22, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1605-JT-1028

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

The Honorable Larry E. Bradley, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1507-JT-467

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 2 of 13

Case Summary and Issues

[1] S.M. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights 

to her two-year-old son, M.M, raising a sole restated issue: whether the 

juvenile court’s termination order is supported by clear and convincing 

evidence. Concluding the termination order is not clearly erroneous, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother has two children: T.B. and M.M. Prior to M.M.’s birth, the Indiana 

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) received a report of domestic violence 

between Mother and T.B.’s father and filed a petition alleging T.B. was a child 

in need of services (“CHINS”). During this CHINS proceeding, Mother 

informed her therapist she was “thinking about harming [T.B.] as she felt her 

life would be significantly easier if she did not have to deal with her daughter[,]

[T.B.]” DCS Exhibit 20. In February 2013, DCS referred Mother to 

psychologist Danielle Nance for a psychological evaluation.1 Nance concluded 

Mother suffers from cognitive delay due to a low intelligence quotient, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression.2

 Nance recommended Mother 

manage her depression symptoms through medication and counseling, but 

warned

 

1

In October 2012, Mother was hospitalized for depression for seventy-two hours.

2 Given Mother’s cognitive delay, Nance concluded Mother will struggle to manage her own mental health 

issues, her ability to parent, and will require some assistance and supervision in her day-to-day living.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 3 of 13

[Mother] is an individual with developmental and cognitive 

delays that continue to present as risk variables to her safe day to

day living. There are certainly parenting risks present due to her 

cognitive delays. While individuals with mild cognitive 

handicaps can be in a parenting role, this is very difficult and 

may not be safe without direct support, oversight and assistance.

Id. Mother also became pregnant with M.M. shortly after her psychological 

evaluation and DCS worked with Mother in preparation for M.M.’s birth. 

[3] In December 2013 and shortly before the birth of M.M., DCS became 

concerned with whether Mother was prepared for the birth of M.M. due to 

reports of domestic violence between Mother and M.M.’s father (“Father”) and 

Mother’s inability to find suitable housing. Following M.M.’s birth, DCS filed 

a petition alleging M.M. was a CHINS. Thereafter, Mother and Father entered 

into a safety plan under which M.M. was to remain in Mother’s care and 

Father was to receive supervised visitation. In March 2014, the juvenile court 

adjudicated M.M. as a CHINS, citing T.B.’s CHINS adjudication,3instances of 

domestic violence, and Mother’s mental health issues. Further, the juvenile 

court ordered Mother to participate in reunification services; Mother was to

participate in a homebased counseling program, complete a psychological 

evaluation and follow any recommendations, and complete a domestic violence 

assessment and follow any recommendations. At some point, Mother violated 

the safety plan by allowing Father to have unsupervised visitation with M.M. 

 

3 Ultimately, the juvenile court adjudicated T.B. as a CHINS and awarded custody to T.B.’s father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 4 of 13

On July 15, 2014, DCS removed M.M. from Mother due to Mother violating 

the safety plan and the dirty condition of her residence.

[4] Following M.M.’s removal, Mother had supervised visitation with M.M. 

During these visits, Mother struggled to interact with M.M. In addition, 

Mother was inattentive and was often on her cell phone to the extent she was 

not able to fully supervise M.M. nor take “full advantage” of the visitation time. 

Transcript at 19. Mother sometimes did not have food to feed M.M. during 

visits, forcing Mother to contact family members or friends to provide money to 

purchase food for M.M. Outside of visitation, Mother moved residences on at 

least seven different occasions, and at times, found herself homeless. When 

Mother did have housing, the housing was “often very dirty, trash on the floor, 

trash in the kitchen, food on the floor, on surfaces . . . sex items out for general 

viewing.” Id. at 76. 

[5] On July 8, 2015, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights and 

the juvenile court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, DCS 

Family Case Manager Sonja Parker testified Mother has lived in many different 

residences in a short period of time and most of those homes were not suitable 

to raise a child. Parker did opine M.M.’s uncle’s two-bedroom apartment, 

where Mother currently resides, is cleaner than Mother’s previous residences, 

but noted concern there was only a six-month lease on the apartment and 

approximately twelve people live in the apartment. As to Mother’s financial 

stability, Parker testified Mother does not have a job and is limited to her social 

security income. Even after DCS removed M.M. from Mother’s care, Mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 5 of 13

struggled to make do, “leaving her without food and . . . times without being 

able to pay her portion of the rent that she has with her roommates.” Id. at 24. 

Despite DCS encouraging Mother to seek employment, Mother did not intend 

to seek employment, claiming her social security income was sufficient. Parker

concluded Mother would further struggle with the added expenses of caring for 

M.M. and opined Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. On crossexamination, Parker emphasized Mother’s instability, inability to financially

secure and care for herself, and dependency on others were all major concerns 

DCS has had with Mother “for the entire life of the case.” Id. at 43. 

[6] Ashley Douthitt, Mother’s home-based case manager, opined Mother has not 

made enough progress to be unified with M.M. Douthitt opined Mother’s 

residence was not suitable for M.M. given the fact the home only has two 

bedrooms and “about twelve people” live in the home. Id. at 54. As to 

Mother’s financial instability, Douthitt stated Mother “does struggle with kind 

of providing for just basic needs for herself sometimes[,]” explaining Mother 

struggles to manage money and often relies on others to provide financial 

assistance. Id. at 55. Lastly, Douthitt noted she has encouraged Mother to take 

medication to treat her mental health issues, but Mother has not done so.

[7] Erika Forslund, also Mother’s home-based case manager for some time, 

testified she worked with Mother in an attempt to stabilize Mother’s financial 

and housing issues. Due to Mother’s low income and a previous eviction, 

Mother struggled to find a residence. Forslund encouraged Mother to budget in 

order to save money so Mother could pay a deposit on a new residence, but 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 6 of 13

Mother was “often untruthful about where her money was going or unable to 

say where it was going so budgeting really never panned out in order to find 

somewhere.” Id. at 77. Given Mother’s inability to budget, find suitable 

housing, and feed herself, Forslund opined Mother had not shown she could 

care for herself nor M.M.

[8] Sara Bucksten, Mother’s home-based case therapist, met with Mother and 

diagnosed her with “major” depression. Id. at 97. Bucksten testified Mother’s 

depression impedes her daily functioning, her ability to finish tasks, and her 

ability to parent a child. Specifically, Bucksten explained Mother struggles to 

care for herself, let alone a child. Bucksten also noted Mother is not taking 

necessary steps to treat her depression and recommended M.M. not return to 

Mother’s care, claiming Mother has made only “minimal progress.” Id. at 104.

[9] Following the evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court issued an order 

terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding in relevant part,

2. The parental rights of [M.M.’s] father were terminated on 

November 20, 2015.

* * *

4. At the time [M.M.’s] CHINS case was filed, [Mother] was 

involved [in] another CHINS case with her daughter [T.B.] that 

had been pending since October 2012. That case was closed on 

February 2, 2016, with custody of [T.B.] being awarded to the 

child’s father.

5. On March 4, 2014, [M.M.] was found to be in need of services 

after [Mother] admitted to there being a pending CHINS case on 

[M.M.’s] half-sibling, and that there is a history of domestic 

violence and mental health issues for which she was undergoing 

ongoing treatment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 7 of 13

* * *

7. In July 2014, [M.M.] was detained outside the home after his 

safety plan was violated.

* * *

10. Due to having minimal Social Security Supplemental 

Income of $733.00, [Mother] had a hard time meeting her basic 

needs of stable housing and food.

11. [Mother] relies on others, mainly her mother, as a support 

system to help meet her needs.

12. [Mother] has no intention of obtaining employment to 

supplement her disability.

13. [Mother] lived at several addresses during the CHINS case, 

living with friends and relatives and was sometimes homeless.

14. Making it harder to obtain appropriate housing was 

[Mother’s] lack of budgeting for a deposit and having evictions 

on her records.

15. [Mother] currently lives in a two bedroom home with her 

brother and his girlfriend. This home is inappropriate for a small 

child because of the ten to twelve other people who reside there.

16. Past residences where [Mother] lived by herself where [sic] 

found to be cluttered, dirty, and trashy. 

17. Home based case management was referred to address 

housing, income, and budgeting issues. Although [Mother] 

participated in case management services from September 2014 

to the time of this trial, she has not made enough progress to 

reunify with [M.M.]

18. A major concern for [Mother’s] ability to safely parent is her 

failure to follow up on recommendations to treat her major 

depression diagnosis. [Mother] refuses to take medication as 

[she] did not like the way prior depression medication made her 

feel.

19. [Mother] has also been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder and anxiety. 

20. [Mother] is functioning within the extremely low range of 

intelligence. Most people in this range of cognitive delay need 

assistance and supervision in their daily life and parenting 

responsibilities.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 8 of 13

21. Depressive symptoms experienced by [Mother] includes [sic] 

having no energy or motivation, sleeping a lot, and feeling a lack 

of worth or having a purpose.

22. Due to her daily struggle with self-care, the home based 

therapist who has seen [Mother] since November 2014 cannot 

recommend [M.M.] be returned to her care, feeling [Mother] has 

made minimal progress.

23. Participation in services is not the issue here, but that 

[Mother] has struggled from the beginning to care for herself.

24. [Mother] has made progress with parenting skills since 

parenting time began which was then strained and stressful for 

[M.M.] and his mother. However, [M.M.] is still resistant to his 

mother’s affection and will not allow her to pick him up.

* * *

26. Continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat 

to [M.M.’s] well-being. Without successfully addressing safety 

and neglect issues of instability and untreated mental health, 

[Mother] cannot provide a safe and stable home. Service 

providers and the family case manager all see [Mother] struggling 

to meet her own needs. She would not be able to meet [M.M.’s] 

needs.

27. There is a reasonable probability that the conditions that 

resulted in [M.M.’s] removal and continued placement outside 

the home will not be remedied by his mother. [Mother] has been 

involved in services in [M.M.’s] case alone for two years and she 

has not progressed to the point where she has unsupervised 

parenting time. Given her refusal to supplement income, 

adequately treat her depression, and be able to overcome 

cognitive delays, [Mother] will not be able to overcome 

conditions.

Appellant’s Appendix at 19-20. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 9 of 13

I. Standard of Review

[10] When we review a termination of parental rights, we neither weigh the 

evidence nor judge witness credibility, In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910, 923 (Ind.

2011), and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most 

favorable to the judgment, S.L. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114, 

1123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). As required by statute, the juvenile court entered 

findings of fact and conclusions. See Ind. Code § 31-35-2-8(c). We therefore 

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 re C.G., 954 N.E.2d at 923. “We will set aside the court’s 

judgment terminating a parent-child relationship only if it is clearly erroneous. 

Clear error is that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made.” S.L., 997 N.E.2d at 1123 (citation omitted)

II. Termination Order 

[11] Mother contends the juvenile court’s termination order is clearly erroneous.4 

Specifically, she claims DCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence to 

establish there is a reasonable probability the conditions resulting in M.M.’s 

removal will not be remedied and there is a reasonable probability the 

 

4 Except for finding number twenty-seven, we note Mother does not challenge any findings of fact and we 

therefore accept those as true. See In re B.R.., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 10 of 13

continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to M.M’s well-being. 

We disagree.

[12] “[T]he involuntary termination of parental rights is an extreme measure that is 

designed to be used as a last resort when all other reasonable efforts have failed 

. . . .” In re K.W., 12 N.E.3d 241, 249 (Ind. 2014) (alteration in original) 

(citation omitted). Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2) sets forth what must be 

proven in order to terminate parental rights, which we quote in relevant 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.

The State must prove each element by clear and convincing evidence. Ind.

Code § 31-34-12-2; In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1261 (Ind. 2009). If a juvenile 

court determines that the allegations of the petition are true, then the court shall 

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

[13] “In determining whether the conditions that led to a child’s removal will not be 

remedied,” the juvenile court “must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her child 

at the time of the termination hearing and take into consideration evidence of 

changed conditions.” In re A.B., 924 N.E.2d 666, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

“[I]t is not just the basis for the initial removal of the child that may be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 11 of 13

considered for purposes of determining whether a parent’s rights should be 

terminated, but also those bases resulting in the continued placement outside of 

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

The juvenile court must also “evaluate the parent’s habitual patterns of conduct 

to determine the probability of future neglect or deprivation of the child.” In re 

A.B., 924 N.E.2d at 670 (citation omitted). The juvenile court may also 

consider the services the State offered to the parent and the parent’s response to 

such services. Id.

[14] The record establishes DCS initially became concerned for M.M.’s well-being 

due to Mother’s lack of appropriate housing, Mother’s untreated mental health 

issues, and instances of domestic violence. The record further establishes M.M. 

was initially removed from Mother’s care because Mother violated the safety 

plan and could not keep her home safe and clean. The juvenile court then 

continued M.M.’s removal as DCS continued to be concerned with Mother’s 

housing instability, inability to financially secure and care for herself, and her 

dependency on others. In maintaining DCS did not meet its burden, Mother 

argues the juvenile court’s findings as to her income, mental health issues, and 

cognitive delay—each viewed independently—do not support the conclusion 

there is a reasonable probability the conditions leading to M.M.’s removal will 

not be remedied. Although Mother may be correct the juvenile court’s findings 

as to her income, for example, are alone insufficient to support terminating her 

parental rights, we note the record speaks to much more than her financial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 12 of 13

instability and inability to properly budget.

5 Specifically, the record establishes 

Mother made minimal progress in therapy, Mother did not oblige numerous 

requests she appropriately address her mental health issues, Mother ignored 

DCS’ request to seek employment, and Mother could not secure suitable and 

safe housing for M.M. In taking all of the juvenile court’s findings under 

consideration, the findings establish Mother has failed to take necessary steps to 

care for herself—a concern DCS has had “for the entire life of the case”—and 

remedy the conditions leading to M.M.’s removal. Tr. at 43. We conclude 

DCS presented sufficient evidence to show a reasonable probability the 

conditions leading to M.M.’s removal or to his continued placement outside the 

home will not be remedied.6

Conclusion 

 

5 To the extent Mother argues the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding number twentyseven, we note such an argument invites us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which 

we will not do. In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d at 1260. We note, however, Mother seems to argue DCS did not 

present evidence Mother could even seek employment in light of her mental health issues and cognitive 

delay. Even assuming Mother was in a condition to be employed, Mother’s ability to budget would be 

essential to her own, and M.M.’s, well-being and DCS presented evidence of Mother’s inability to properly 

budget.

6 Mother also contends the juvenile court erred in finding continuation of the parent-child relationship 

posed a threat to M.M.’s well-being. However, Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in 

the disjunctive and requires only one element in that subsection be proven to support termination of 

parental rights. See In re I.A., 903 N.E.2d 146, 153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Because we conclude the 

evidence is sufficient to show a reasonable probability the conditions resulting in M.M.’s removal will 

not be remedied, we need not also determine whether the juvenile court erred in concluding 

continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to M.M.’s well-being.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1605-JT-1028 | December 22, 2016 Page 13 of 13

[15] DCS established by clear and convincing evidence the elements necessary to 

support the termination of Mother’s parental rights. The judgment of the 

juvenile court terminating Mother’s parental rights is affirmed.

[16] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.