In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.G. (Child) and S.R. (Mother), S.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 20 2020, 10:14 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Harold E. Amstutz Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Catherine Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Termination July 20, 2020
of the Parent-Child Relationship Court of Appeals Case No.
of A.G. (Child) and S.R. 20A-JT-557
(Mother), Appeal from the Tippecanoe
S.R. (Mother), Superior Court
The Honorable Faith Graham,
Appellant-Respondent,
Judge
v. Trial Court Cause No.
79D03-1909-JT-128
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 1 of 21
[1] S.R. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to A.G.
(“Child”). Mother argues the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) did not
present sufficient evidence to support some of the trial court’s findings. Mother
also contends the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusions that the
conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be
remedied and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best
interests. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother is the biological mother of Child, born April 4, 2017. On April 30,
2018, DCS received a report that C.G., II (“Father”) 1 was “smoking spice in
[Child’s] presence.” (App. Vol. II at 12.) After an investigation, DCS
determined the report was untrue, as Child was not with Father at the time
because Mother, who was homeless, left Child in Paternal Grandmother’s care.
On May 19, 2018, DCS received a second report involving Child, which alleged
substance abuse at Paternal Grandmother’s home, where Child was living.
Police arrested Paternal Grandmother for substance offenses and placed her in
Community Corrections. Mother took Child to Maternal Step-grandfather’s
home because Mother was “still unemployed and homeless.” (Id.)
1
The parental rights of Father were also terminated. Father does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 2 of 21
[3] On June 4, 2018, DCS received a third report regarding Child’s care, this time
alleging Father was using illegal drugs. An investigation revealed Father had
been arrested on charges related to substance abuse and evading law
enforcement. Additionally, DCS discovered that Paternal Grandfather and
Paternal Step-grandmother lived with Maternal Step-grandmother and Child.
Paternal Grandfather was involved in another DCS case and had recently tested
positive for methamphetamine. Child was subsequently tested for the presence
of illegal substances and tested positive for methamphetamine. At the time,
Mother was still unemployed, homeless, and unable to care for Child. Mother
had also been diagnosed with mental illness and was not in treatment or taking
medication therefor.
[4] On June 7, 2018, the trial court issued an emergency order placing Child under
DCS’s wardship. DCS placed Child with a foster family, with whom Child has
remained throughout these proceedings. DCS filed a petition to adjudicate
Child as a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) on June 7, 2018. The trial
court held a fact-finding hearing on the petition on August 9, 2018, and Mother
admitted she was unable to care for Child. 2 On August 17, 2018, the trial court
adjudicated Child a CHINS. On September 27, 2018, the trial court held a
dispositional hearing and issued an order requiring Mother to participate in
certain services including home-based case management, mental health
2
Father was incarcerated and did not attend the fact-finding hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 3 of 21
assessment and recommended treatment, parenting assessment and parenting
education, visitation with Child, drug screens, and individual therapy.
[5] Mother was granted supervised visitation with Child and did not progress to
unsupervised visitation. The visitation supervisor reported Mother was often
unprepared for visits, which resulted in visits ending early because Mother did
not bring diapers or food for Child. Mother also was often distracted by her
phone or by fighting with her boyfriend. The visitation supervisor testified that
when Mother’s parenting behavior was corrected or redirected, Mother would
become defensive.
[6] Throughout the CHINS proceedings, Mother had approximately three different
jobs and lived in five different locations. Mother applied for social security
disability benefits based on her mental health diagnosis but did not attend a
follow up appointment and therefore was automatically denied. Mother has
not completed the appeal paperwork to obtain social security disability. DCS
helped Mother and her boyfriend get an apartment, but they were ultimately
evicted for non-payment of rent. While in the apartment, Mother would allow
homeless people to use her shower and another person staying at the residence
had to be transported to the hospital for an alleged overdose.
[7] Mother attended some home-based case management appointments, which
focused on budgeting and other home management skills. Mother refused to
learn to manage her money and would give her boyfriend her paychecks to put
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 4 of 21
into a savings account that she could not access. Mother did not know what
boyfriend did with her money.
[8] Based on Mother’s noncompliance with services, DCS filed a petition to
terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child on September 12, 2019. On
November 25, 2019, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
On February 21, 2020, the trial court issued an order terminating Mother’s
parental rights to Child.
Discussion and Decision
[9] We review termination of parental rights with great deference. In re K.S., 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).
[10] “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
subordinate the interests of the parents to those of the children when evaluating
the circumstances surrounding a termination. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d at 837.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 5 of 21
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.
[11] 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 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). 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
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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 6 of 21
1. Challenged Findings
[12] 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.” 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.
[13] As an initial matter, Mother argues:
The courts [sic] findings as to the Mother did not accurately
reflect the totality of evidence presented in the exhibits and
testimony. Findings #10 through #20 and #22 through #26 are
inaccurate as they present in detail any and all negative
information about [Mother], without presenting the positive
information in the same manner.
(Br. of Appellant at 15.) However, Mother does not cite the positive evidence
the trial court allegedly did not consider, and she does not make a specific
argument as to how these findings are clearly erroneous. “Bald assertions of
error unsupported by either cogent argument or citation to authority results in
waiver of any error on review.” Pasha v. State, 524 N.E.2d 310, 314 (Ind. 1988).
Waiver notwithstanding, Mother does not contest the factual accuracy of the
findings; instead she challenges the set of facts upon which the trial court based
its conclusions. On appeal, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 7 of 21
credibility of witnesses, In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265, and thus her arguments
regarding those findings fail.
[14] Mother also contends “[m]any of the courts [sic] findings (#[27-35]) are
exclusively regarding the father and should not be considered as to whether the
Mother’s rights should be terminated.” (Br. of Appellant at 15.) However, she
does not cite the record or case law regarding why we should not look at all of
the trial court’s findings to consider whether DCS established the required
elements to terminate her parental rights, and thus her argument is waived for
failure to make a cogent argument. See Indiana App. Rule 48(A)(6) (issue must
be supported by cogent argument, including citations to the record and relevant
case law); and see Castro v. State Office of Family & Children, 842 N.E.2d 367, 373
n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (failure to present a cogent argument waives the issue
on appeal), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, we note that the trial court
did not solely rely on the findings as to Father in making their decision to
terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights and, as we discuss infra, there
were sufficient findings to support the trial court’s conclusions regarding the
termination of Mother’s parental rights absent the findings concerning Father.
[15] Mother also challenges Finding 21, which states, “Mother was fairly compliant
with drug screens until August of 2019.” (App. Vol. II at 15.) Mother contends
“Finding #21 is not a fair description of the drug screen evidence.” (Br. of
Appellant at 15.) The Family Case Manager (“FCM”) testified that, prior to
August 2019, Mother “submitted to probably about ninety-five percent of her
drug screens” but was then “suspended due to non-compliance” in August
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 8 of 21
2019. (Tr. Vol. II at 142-3.) Mother’s argument is an invitation for us to
reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do
See In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d at 265 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or
judge credibility of witnesses).
[16] Therefore, we conclude, based on the FCM’s testimony, the evidence supported
Finding 21. Mother does not properly challenge any of the trial court’s other
findings, so they stand as proven. See Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 687
(Ind. 1992) (unchallenged findings accepted as true on appeal).
2. Reasonable Probability that Conditions Not Remedied
[17] A trial court must judge a parent’s fitness to care for her 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 conditions will not change. Lang v. Starke
Cty. OFC, 861 N.E.2d 366, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Mother
argues DCS did not present sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
findings and those findings do not support its conclusion that the conditions
under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied. 3
3
Mother also seems to challenge the services offered to her by DCS. She contends DCS did not make
referrals to certain services and “[i]t is not enough that the DCS just offer standard, boilerplate, one size fits
all, services. Every case requires the DCS to tailor services so they will help the parent.” (Br. of Appellant at
19.) However, Mother cannot challenge the services provided by DCS to attack a termination order. See In
re H.L., 915 N.E.2d 145, 148 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“a failure to provide services does not serve as a basis
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 9 of 21
[18] The trial court found Child was removed from Mother’s care because Mother
was “in an unstable living situation, unemployed, and unable to care for
[Child].” (App. Vol. II at 12.) Additionally, “Mother had been previously
diagnosed with bipolar disorder but was not in treatment or taking medication.”
(Id.) Leading up to the adjudication of Child as a CHINS, Mother left Child in
the care of various family members because of her housing instability.
However, these family members consumed illegal drugs, including in Child’s
presence.
[19] To support its conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the
conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be
remedied, the trial court found:
10. Mother was referred to home-based case management
services to assist her with housing, employment, accessing
resources, and establishing appropriate boundaries. Mother
failed to make sustainable progress in home-based case
management. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from two
providers and is currently working with a third provider. Mother
struggled to stay awake during some sessions, stayed in bed
during some sessions, and missed many sessions. Providers
found it difficult to schedule appointments and communicate
with Mother. Mother frequently double-booked appointments
despite case managers [sic] work with her on this issue. Mother
on which to directly attack a termination order as contrary to law”); and see In re B.D.J., 728 N.E.2d 195, 201
(Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“a parent may not sit idly by without asserting a need or desire for services and then
successfully argue that he was denied services to assist him with his parenting”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 10 of 21
was not honest with providers about her progress. Mother also
had anger issues and made threats to one provider.
11. Mother failed to demonstrate that she could provide [Child]
with a stable living situation. When the CHINS case started,
[M]other was living with different friends and relatives, then she
and her boyfriend rented from a friend. After they were evicted,
[M]other and her boyfriend lived with her boss for a period of
time. In October of 2018, Mother and her boyfriend obtained an
apartment with financial assistance of DCS. Mother had very
little furniture, only one or two toys, and limited clothing for
[Child]. Case management assisted Mother with upkeep and
maintenance of the apartment and helped Mother work with the
landlord to make sure bills were being paid. After several
months in the apartment, Mother and her boyfriend moved into
a bigger apartment and their rent increased from $550 to $750.
Mother and her boyfriend quickly got behind on rent and case
management worked with Mother on options. Mother failed to
follow through with paperwork and was evicted in July of 2019
for failing to pay rent and disturbing the neighbors. After being
evicted, Mother declined to stay in a shelter and moved to a
friend’s house out of town. Mother returned to Lafayette after a
short time and again stayed with different friends and relatives,
one of whom recently tested positive for drugs. Mother refused
to disclose her current housing situation to DCS so that the
appropriateness for [Child] could be determined. At the
evidentiary hearing, Mother indicated that she is living with a
new boyfriend and his relatives. Mother’s new boyfriend has
children, but they live with his mother and sister.
12. Mother struggled to maintain the cleanliness of the
apartment and it often smelled of smoke and cats. Mother also
allowed inappropriate people to stay in the home, such as
allowing homeless people to shower. One of the friend’s [sic]
Mother allowed to stay in the apartment overdosed. Mother and
her boyfriend also allowed a minor to stay in the home with them
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 11 of 21
for several months until police issued a trespass warning against
the minor.
13. Mother failed to demonstrate that she could financially
provide for [Child] through employment or obtaining disability.
Throughout the CHINS case, Mother struggled to maintain
employment for more than a few weeks or months. Mother was
unemployed from April of 2019 until October of 2019. Mother
does not have a high school diploma, which limits her
employment opportunities. Mother is currently unemployed.
14. After Mother completed a psychological evaluation, it was
recommended that Mother apply for social security disability.
Mother completed a phone appointment but failed to attend a
follow up appointment. Mother requested appeal paperwork but
failed to complete it despite multiple prompts and offers of
assistance from her case manager.
15. For most of the CHINS case, [M]other was completely
dependent on her boyfriend for scheduling, financial decisions,
emotional regulation, and parenting [Child]. Mother gave all her
paychecks to her boyfriend, who would put the money into a
savings account that Mother could not access. Case
management worked with Mother and her boyfriend to budget
their money, but Mother and her boyfriend were unable to
establish where their money was spent. When they received a
tax refund, Mother and her boyfriend spent all the money and
did not pay towards rent even though both of them had lost their
jobs. When the relationship ended in July of 2019, Mother
struggled and did not believe she could make it on her own.
Mother wanted her ex-boyfriend to continue to control her
finances and wanted him to be the payee if she obtained
disability.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 12 of 21
16. Case management also worked with Mother on her hygiene.
Despite many prompts, Mother was often observed to have body
odor and greasy hair. Mother would go weeks without
showering even though she had access to a shower. Mother also
failed to wash her clothes. Mother struggled with hygiene issues
with [Child] as well.
17. Mother completed a mental health assessment with Child
and Family Partners in October of 2018. Mother reported
domestic violence in her relationship with Father and disclosed
losing two (2) pregnancies to domestic violence incidents.
Mother also disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather and a family
member. The assessment recommended that Mother have a
medical and psychological evaluation to determine whether a
disability diagnosis was warranted. Case management was also
recommended as it was noted that Mother struggled with keeping
track of appointments, setting a routine, and incorporating
“unforeseeable events into her responsibilities without causing
undue stress.” It was also noted that Mother “appeared to have
minimal [sic] slower cognitive processing” but it did not interfere
with her ability to participate in the assessment. Mother reported
that her learning disability did not impact her ability to function
in daily life.
18. Mother completed the psychological evaluation in March of
2019 and the report was completed in April of 2019. Mother
appeared at the psychological evaluation wearing pajamas,
smelling unpleasant, and having greasy and unclean hair.
Mother was diagnosed with Intellectual Disability Mild and
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.
The testing indicated that Mother “may not understand
information the way others do, and she may take significantly
more time than her peers to learn new information.” It was also
noted that Mother would likely struggle to understand
information regardless of how it was presented to her. Mother’s
reading level was determined to be a 5th grade level. It was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 13 of 21
reported that Mother’s “cognitive abilities are very likely
impeding her ability to function effectively, and independently, in
her daily life.” Mother has become dependent on others for
support and this dependency combined with her poor social
judgement place Mother as a high risk of entering and struggling
to leave unhealthy relationships. It was recommended that
Mother be provided with written material at a 5th grade level and
that it be explained thoroughly. It was recommended that
Mother be asked to say what she heard in her own words and
that modeling and repetition be used to teach new skills.
Therapy and case management were recommended for Mother
and it was also suggested that she apply for disability.
19. DCS addressed Mother’s cognitive struggles by having
home-based case management work with [M]other to understand
all written materials and written materials presented were a level
that Mother should have been able to understand. Case
managers noted that Mother had a short attention span and
would get restless and fidgety after ten (10) minutes. Further, if
too much direction was given, Mother would get defensive and
lash out at case managers. To address this, case management
was done in little segments to help [M]other process better.
20. Mother participated in individual therapy with Child and
Family Partners to address past trauma and relationships,
scheduling, developing positive supports, and unstable
employment. Mother participating [sic] fairly consistently from
December of 2018 to March of 2019. Mother then participated
in individual therapy with Valley Oaks from May to October of
2019. Therapy focused on communication skills, healthy
relationships, and anger management. Mother attended four (4)
sessions and made minimal progress. Mother was discharged in
October of 2019 due to missing seven (7) sessions. Mother
indicated that she did not go to therapy because she did not like
to talk to people about her feelings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 14 of 21
21. Mother was fairly compliant with drug screens until August
of 2019.
22. Mother participated in parenting education with three
different providers. Goals included improving bonding and
attachment, understanding the importance of stability and
appropriate relationships, and understanding age development
and milestones. Cases [sic] managers also worked with Mother
on nutrition, safety, cleanliness, and hygiene. Information was
demonstrated and modeled by case managers and written
materials were also provided.
23. Mother never progressed beyond semi-supervised visits with
[Child]. Mother missed multiple visits and some visits had to be
ended early due to lack of food and supplies. When Mother
attended visits, she was loving and affectionate to [Child].
Providers noted that Mother failed to supervise [Child], became
angry and yelled at [Child], had to be reminded to put her phone
away, and failed to clean [Child] appropriately. Mother tried to
get [Child] to stay in bed with her during visits and Mother had
to be reminded to get up and interact with [Child]. Mother
raised her voice at [Child] causing [Child] to withdraw, then
Mother would get frustrated. The provider noted that Mother
would tell [Child] to “sit,” “stay,” and “no” as if she was a dog.
One visit was ended early after Mother yelled at [Child] and
could not de-escalate after being warned. Mother then threw her
phone, which upset [Child].
24. Mother is currently allowed to visit with [Child] for up to
seven (7) hours per week but she usually does not utilize the
entire amount. The visits are approximately 75-80% supervised
in the community and the provider remains within sight or
hearing distance of Mother. Mother continues to be unprepared
with supplies and she is distracted by her phone during visits.
Despite months of supervised visits and parenting education,
Mother continues to struggle with basic care of [Child], such as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 15 of 21
providing food and supplies, appropriately feeding [Child], and
remembering to change her diaper without being prompted. The
provider recommends reducing Mother’s visits due to Mother
missing visits and ending visits early. She recommends visit [sic]
occur only one (1) time per week until Mother can consistently
visit and provide the necessary supplies.
25. Mother admitted that she does not have the means to care
for [Child] and she is not ready to have [Child] in her care.
(App. Vol. II at 13-16.)
[20] Mother argues the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that the
reasons for Child’s removal from her care would not be remedied because the
trial court did not determine Mother was “unfit” and “whether this case had
reached the ‘last resort stage’ by the time of the trial.” (Br. of Appellant at 16.)
In support of her argument, Mother cites Matter of D.T., 547 N.E.2d 278 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1989), reh’g denied, in which a panel of our court agreed with a
mother’s argument that “factors such as low income or inadequate housing are
by themselves not sufficient grounds to terminate parental rights.” Id. at 285.
However, the court also recognized the well-established standard of our review
that “termination may be based on evidence of recurring events up until the
time of removal.” Id. Here, the termination of Mother’s parental rights to
Child was based not only on her lack of stable housing and employment, but
also her lack of progress in services and inability to parent Child properly
during visits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 16 of 21
[21] Mother also relies on Matter of M.I., 127 N.E.3d 1168 (Ind. 2019), in which our
Indiana Supreme Court held that a mother’s parental rights could not be
terminated based on the “singular conclusion” of that “[m]other’s ongoing
inability to secure suitable housing[.]” Id. at 1171. However, the facts of Matter
of M.I. are distinguishable from those in this case. In Matter of M.I., our Indiana
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny DCS’s petition to
terminate the mother’s parental rights to her children because, while the mother
struggled with finding suitable housing, she and her children “shared a ‘strong,
loving bond[,]’” and the mother “had made progress complying with her
parent-participation plan.” Id. The Court noted the mother did not have
personal transportation and “went to counseling and visitations by foot[,]” and
DCS case managers conceded that the requirements of the parental
participation plan were “cumbersome, often requiring Mother to be in three or
four different places in a given week, while also keeping a job, attending
visitations, and looking for housing.” Id.[22] Here, Mother’s parental rights were not terminated based solely on her inability
to secure housing. 4 The trial court found she was also unable to secure
employment, did not participate in services, had ongoing hygiene issues, and
did not interact well with Child. Mother never progressed past supervised visits
4
Mother also argues her parental rights cannot be terminated based “solely” on Mother’s mental health
struggles. (Br. of Appellant at 18.) However, as we have noted, the trial court made a number of findings
regarding a number of different issues, including Mother’s unwillingness to address her mental health issues,
when considering whether to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 17 of 21
with Child and refused to address her own mental health issues. Based thereon,
we conclude the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that the conditions
under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied. 5
3. Child’s Best Interests
[23] In determining what is in Child’s best interests, a trial 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 a child. In re A.L.H., 774 N.E.2d 896, 990 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). The recommendations of a DCS case manager and court-appointed
advocate to terminate parental rights, in addition to evidence that conditions
resulting in removal will not be remedied, are sufficient to show that
termination is in a child’s best interests. In re J.S., 906 N.E.2d 226, 236 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009).
[24] To support its conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in
Child’s best interests, the trial court found:
5
Mother also alleges the trial court’s findings do not support its conclusion that the continuation of the
parent-child relationship posed a threat to Child’s well-being. Because we hold the trial court’s findings
supported its conclusion that the conditions under which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not
be remedied, we need not consider Mother’s argument regarding whether the continuation of the parent-child
relationship poses a risk to Child’s well-being. See In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
(because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, the court needs find only one
requirement to terminate parental rights), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1161 (2002).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 18 of 21
36. [Child] has been placed with the same foster family since
removal in June of 2018 and she knows this as her home. [Child]
is thriving in the foster home and is meeting or exceeding
developmental goals. She has an established routine and her
needs are met. She is bonded to her foster family. The plan is for
her to be adopted by the foster family.
37. [Court Appointed Special Advocate, hereinafter “CASA”]
Lindy Schubring supports termination of parental rights [as] in
[Child’s] best interests and believes that adoption by foster
parents would give [Child] a safe and stable home. CASA
reports that [Child] is bonded to Mother but is less carefree and
energetic around her. CASA notes that neither parent has been
able to demonstrate a consistent ability to provide for [Child].
(App. Vol. II at 17.) Mother argues “that she hasn’t been provided every
reasonable opportunity and that the case had not reached the ‘last resort stage’
as required. Until it had it can’t be said that an outcome of termination was in
the child’s best interests.” (Br. of Appellant at 28.)
[25] Child has been removed from Mother’s care for over two years. When Child
was removed from Mother’s care, Mother did not have stable housing or
employment and struggled with a diagnosed but untreated mental illness. Over
the last two years, Mother has not participated in services designed to assist her
with obtaining and maintaining suitable housing and employment, as well as
appropriate treatment for her mental illness. Mother’s lack of progress has kept
her from advancing to unsupervised visits with Child.
[26] In addition, the CASA assigned to the case recommended termination because
neither parent “has been able to demonstrate a consistent ability to provide for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 19 of 21
[Child].” (App. Vol. II at 17.) We cannot leave Child in permanency limbo
while Mother is given additional time to complete services in which she has
been reticent to participate. See In re Campbell, 534 N.E.2d 273, 275 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1989) (appellate court “unwilling to put [child] on shelf until [parents] are
capable of caring for her appropriately”); see also Baker v. Marion Cty. OFC, 810
N.E.2d 1035, 1040 n.4 (Ind. 2004) (limitations on trial court’s ability to approve
long-term foster care are designed to ensure a child does not “languish,
forgotten, in custodial limbo for long periods of time without permanency”)
(quoting In re Priser, No. 19861, 2004 WL 541124 at *6 (Ohio Ct. App. March
19, 2004)). Based thereon, we conclude the trial court’s findings supported its
conclusion that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best
interests.
Conclusion
[27] Mother has waived any challenge to the trial court’s findings for failure to make
a cogent argument. Waiver notwithstanding, regarding Finding 21, we
conclude DCS provided sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that Mother was “fairly compliant” with her drug screens until August 2019,
and then noncompliant thereafter. (App. Vol. II at 15.) Additionally, the trial
court’s unchallenged findings support its conclusions that the conditions under
which Child was removed from Mother’s care would not be remedied and that
the termination of Mother’s parental rights to Child were in Child’s best
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 20 of 21
interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights to
Child.
[28] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JT-557 | July 20, 2020 Page 21 of 21