In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relastionship of: M.B.-L. and R.B. (Minor Children) and, J.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FILED
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                             Feb 16 2018, 7:59 am
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    CLERK
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                           Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                             and Tax Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Steven E. Ripstra                                         Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Jacob P. Wahl                                             Attorney General of Indiana
    Ripstra Law Office
    Jasper, Indiana                                           Abigail R. Recker
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Termination of the Parent-                         February 16, 2018
    Child Relationship of:                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A01-1707-JT-1577
    M.B.-L. and R.B. (Minor                                   Appeal from the Dubois Circuit
    Children)                                                 Court
    and,                                             The Honorable Nathan Verkamp,
    Judge
    J.B. (Mother)
    Trial Court Cause Nos.
    Appellant-Respondent,                                     19C01-1701-JT-5
    19C01-1701-JT-6
    v.
    Indiana Department of Child
    Services,
    Appellee-Petitioner.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018        Page 1 of 24
    Barnes, Judge.
    Case Summary
    [1]   J.B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental relationship with her
    children, M.B. and R.B.1 We affirm.
    Issue
    [2]   The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
    termination of Mother’s parental rights.
    Facts
    [3]   Mother gave birth to M.B. in January 2014 and R.B. in September 2014. On
    May 17, 2015, the DuBois County Office of the Department of Child Services
    (“DCS”) removed the children from Mother’s care on an emergency basis due
    to allegations of physical abuse and neglect. Investigators observed that M.B.
    and R.B. had acute diaper rash and scabies. R.B., who has significant medical
    issues due to his premature birth, was extremely thin and appeared
    malnourished; he also had contusions on his face, head, hands, and leg.
    [4]   On May 19, 2015, DCS filed petitions alleging that M.B. and R.B. were
    children in need of services (“CHINS”). The trial court adjudicated the
    children as CHINS on July 30, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the trial court
    1
    The children’s father’s parental rights were also terminated; he is not a party to this appeal.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018              Page 2 of 24
    ordered the children removed from Mother’s care and granted wardship to DCS
    pursuant to a dispositional decree. Under the DCS’s case plan, Mother was to
    maintain weekly contact with her family case manager and to participate in
    recommended services, including parent aide services, individual therapy, and
    supervised visitation sessions.
    [5]   On January 23, 2017, DCS filed verified petitions for involuntary termination
    of Mother’s parental rights. The trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on
    April 12, 2017. Family Case Manager Supervisor Shannon Blaize testified that
    she investigated the allegations of physical abuse and neglect in May 2015. She
    testified,
    R.B. had multiple contusions to the right side of his head, his left
    eye, bridge of nose, behind his right ear, both of his hands, and
    his left leg. He also had a child-sized bite mark on the right side
    of his back. Both the boys had significant diaper rash along with
    a lot of dirt underneath their fingernails.
    Tr. p. 10. Blaize testified further that R.B. had reportedly suffered the
    contusions while Mother was asleep, likely at the hands of Mother’s nephew.
    Blaize testified that when she asked Mother about the children’s health
    conditions, Mother responded that “there were no concerns.” 
    Id. at 11.
    [6]   Former DCS Family Case Manager Jessica Wilson testified that, at the
    beginning of the case, the condition of Mother’s house was
    extremely smoky, extremely dirty, all of that. Then it had
    improved greatly. Then they got cats . . . and it wasn’t being
    cleaned. And so it got pretty bad again, and so that’s when we
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 3 of 24
    had switched visits to a different location until she would get that
    stuff cleaned up. And then it did get cleaned up, and we had
    started visits back at the house again.
    
    Id. at 56.
    [Visitation] went from supervised to monitored, but then there
    was some bruising that was found on [R.B.]. And it could not be
    said for sure where the bruising was coming from, so it was
    recommended from DCS to move back to supervised just to see
    then, like, if they’re normal bruises that come from children just
    being children then we would see those continue. But if it was
    something that had to do with the safety of the children, then that
    would stop. And so we went back to supervised visits, and then
    at that point it remained at supervised until I had left.
    Q:       And had the bruises stopped?
    A:     . . . . Whenever we went back to supervised, then the
    bruising had stopped, yes.
    
    Id. at 41.
    Wilson also testified that, during a supervised visit, Mother and her
    then-boyfriend
    went outside to smoke and were just going to leave the kids in the
    house unsupervised. And so then that was addressed about how
    that wouldn’t be appropriate.
    
    Id. at 43.
    Wilson testified that, although Mother initially cooperated with
    services, she was unable to maintain her progress after her work schedule
    changed; “[Mother] was having trouble balancing the sleep and everything. So
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 4 of 24
    then she wasn’t attending the visits and she wasn’t making the appointments.”
    
    Id. at 46.
    [7]   Wilson testified further that, at the beginning of the case, Mother was receiving
    parent aide services. She testified that Mother participated well initially, but her
    efforts waned “because she had received a job and she was oversleeping or she
    was asleep and didn’t wake up for the door, things of that nature.” 
    Id. at 42.
    Lastly, regarding a mental health assessment of Mother, Wilson testified:
    . . .[W]hat I can remember is that due to maturity – like they said
    that she seemed not to have an understanding of what is realistic
    for a child, like what is safe versus was is not safe. And like even
    with her sleeping habits, what is realistic as far as how much
    sleep one would need in order to be able to properly supervise her
    children.
    
    Id. at 52.
    [8]   Paul Minn (“Minn”) and his wife were the children’s foster parents
    immediately after removal. Minn testified that that M.B. and R.B. were his
    wards from May 2015 through September 2016, when the children were moved
    to their pre-adoptive home. He testified that the children arrived in extremely
    poor condition with skin infections. He testified further that “[R.B.] had marks
    and so forth on him”; and “he was very, very thin.” 
    Id. at 95.
    He added,
    [R.B.] was just nearly emaciated. He just seemed terribly
    malnourished, his ribs showing and, you know, his back bones
    sticking up through his skin. His face was all sunk in. His eyes
    were kind of bulging. . . .[H]e just didn’t look like a normal
    [child].
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 5 of 24
    
    Id. Minn testified
    that M.B. appeared developmentally delayed, and “was not
    walking yet.” 
    Id. He testified
    that “[w]ithin a few weeks of being with us,
    [M.B.] started walking. We just gave him some encouragement and, you
    know, . . . he was doing good.” 
    Id. at 96.
    Minn testified that in time, “[the
    children] kind of came around” under the Minns’s care. 
    Id. at 96.
    The Minns
    “got [R.B.] back involved with” his nutritional specialist, who prescribed a
    special formula for him, “[a]nd he started, you know, fattening up and filling
    out . . . and, you know, seemed to act and look more like a normal infant.” 
    Id. Minn testified
    that Mother had “just quit” taking R.B. to his appointments with
    the nutritional specialist and neonatologist. 
    Id. at 97.
    [9]    Minn testified that he and his wife had to transport R.B. to appointments with
    medical specialists located throughout the state. He testified further that the
    children each were delayed in achieving developmental milestones: “I know
    [R.B.] had a physical therapist and [M.B.] had a developmental therapist that
    would come and work with them on things that they probably should have
    already been – you know, had a grasp on.” 
    Id. at 99.
    [10]   Minn also testified that, in addition to the nutritional specialist and the
    neonatologist, R.B. also sees a pulmonologist for his lung issues. He testified,
    His breathing was always an issue. And in fact, the
    pulmonologist informed us that, you know, obviously, you
    know, he couldn’t be around cigarette smoke. But he said – he
    had told us that even the – if you’re not smoking around the kid
    but you’re a smoker and it’s in your carpet or, you know, on your
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 6 of 24
    couch or on your clothes, it’s still just as detrimental . . . to a
    child, I mean, particularly one that’s very sensitive to that.
    
    Id. at 99.
    Minn testified that after, visits with Mother, the children occasionally
    returned smelling of cigarette smoke, dirty, and/or presented with questionable
    injuries on R.B. Minn also testified that, following the children’s visits with
    Mother, his home became infested with bedbugs and he contracted a “C.Diff”2
    infection. 
    Id. at 101.
    Lastly, Minn testified that, when the children left his
    home for their pre-adoptive home,
    [They] had developed into completely different kids. . . . They
    were happy and outgoing. [R.B.] had started walking, speaking a
    few words. They both seemed very healthy. I mean, they had
    gotten – you know, gotten all the nurturing and nutrition that,
    you know, we could give them that they needed. In fact, that’s
    what the . . . neonatologist, he said, you know, he just couldn’t
    believe the improvements. And he said that nurture was just as
    important as nutrition.
    
    Id. at 102.
    [11]   Janice Williams of Ireland Home Based Services testified that she assisted
    Mother’s reunification efforts by providing intensive services in the areas of
    housing, employment, parenting, and meeting the children’s basic needs.
    Williams testified that Mother lacked housing and employment when she began
    2
    Clostridium difficil, or “C.Diff,” is a bacterial infection of the colon that can be contracted in unsanitary
    conditions.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018             Page 7 of 24
    receiving services. She testified that, although Mother succeeded in securing a
    job, she “had trouble waking up,” and “[s]he had a problem remembering
    appointments and things she was supposed to do . . . .” 
    Id. at 17.
    She testified
    that she had a recurring concern regarding Mother’s inability to moderate her
    sleep: “At times they were sleeping whenever I would arrive. . . . Like
    [Mother] had admitted she had problems waking up . . . .” 
    Id. at 19,
    22.
    Williams testified further that, under the Homebuilders program, “the children
    have to be returned within a month or we close services.” 
    Id. at 23.
    She
    testified that, although the majority of program participants successfully achieve
    reunification, Mother showed “[n]ot really significant progress” and was
    discharged as “not successful.” 
    Id. at 20,
    21.
    [12]   Home-based family caseworker Bethany Glazebrook, who supervised Mother’s
    parenting time from July 2015 through July 2016, testified that “[they] work[ed]
    on parenting skills” and on “[w]hat the children should accomplish for their
    age[s], like the walking, the talking, their development.” 
    Id. at 62.
    She testified
    that Mother was receptive to services but was inconsistent, cancelling seventeen
    of approximately one hundred and fifty visits, usually due to illness,
    oversleeping, and missing appointments.
    [13]   Heather Rockman-Boatman of Ireland Home Based Services testified that she
    provided supervised visits to Mother to help her with discipline, housing,
    employment, bonding, and positive interaction. She testified that Mother had
    “a lot of missed visits, so I can’t say that there’s consistency.” 
    Id. at 77.
    Mother failed on a few occasions to call ahead to confirm that she was going to
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 8 of 24
    attend her scheduled visits, which resulted in the children being transported for
    visits that she did not attend. Rockman-Boatman also testified that the
    supervised visits occur in “a very controlled room so there’s not a lot of
    concerns as far as safety” – a stark departure from the reality of parenting two
    young boys. 
    Id. at 79.
    [14]   Kathleen Speedy, a case manager with Southern Hills Counseling Center,
    testified that she works with clients on “parenting skills, organizational skills,
    anxiety, [and] coping skills . . .” 
    Id. at 84.
    She testified that, as Mother’s parent
    aide, she met with her approximately two or three times each week. She
    testified that she observed a lack of consistency in supervised visits: “On those
    she had about 13 no-shows and a canceled -- call canceled by [Mother] in about
    ten of those.” 
    Id. at 85.
    Mother was ultimately discharged for poor attendance.
    Mother’s program goals were obtaining her GED; getting her driver’s license;
    securing safe housing; and improving her parenting and organization. Speedy
    testified that, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not obtained
    her GED or driver’s license, and was living in an apartment that presented a
    safety concern. Mother was discharged having “not successfully completed”
    the program. 
    Id. at 87.
    [15]   Kelly VanMeter, a staff therapist with Southern Hills Counseling Center,
    testified that she was Mother’s individual therapist. She testified that Mother
    failed to follow up on her reunification goal “[a]s far as therapy with me . . .
    because she has missed more sessions than she has made sessions.” 
    Id. at 91.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 9 of 24
    She testified that, although she notified Mother in writing of the process for
    reinstatement, Mother failed to follow through.
    [16]   Hannah Cannon, a case manager with The Villages, a licensed child placement
    agency, testified that she worked with the Minns to establish “specific goals for
    the children for their development, cognitive functioning, speech, that type of
    thing.” 
    Id. at 105.
    As for the children’s medical issues, Cannon testified that
    M.B. works with a speech therapist and “really doesn’t have any specific
    medical needs.” 
    Id. at 106.
    She testified that R.B., however, has lung issues;
    gastrointestinal issues, including a milk protein allergy; must take formula
    because he has difficulty gaining weight; and sees a developmental therapist
    and a physical therapist.
    [17]   Ann Staff, the children’s CASA throughout the entire CHINS period, testified
    that Mother “loves those boys,” and that their relationship is “close” and
    “bonded.” 
    Id. at 132.
    However, she testified further that Mother “has trouble
    dealing with both of [the children] at the same time.” 
    Id. Asked whether
    she
    had “concerns for the boys if they are in Mother’s care,” Staff testified:
    I don’t think that she is capable of raising the boys. I have
    concerns that she would be able to take care of them financially.
    Yes, she’s been doing a great job about having a job and she
    continues, you know, to have a job. But having a job then means
    time away from the boys as well. And she doesn’t have a good
    support system.
    It’s not like she has family that she can rely on. She can’t drive.
    She doesn’t really want to drive. There are things that are
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 10 of 24
    needed to take care of the boys, the doctor’s visits. I mean, just
    the fact that it took so long to find a ride to the hospital when --
    you know, when [R.B.] was initially injured. You know, she’s
    young. She’s very young. And I think she is growing. I think
    she is learning. I am happy that she is doing these things. But
    it’s not to the level where I would feel comfortable having the
    boys reunited with her.
    Q:    As the CASA, what would you have liked to have seen
    from Mother to facilitate reunification?
    A:      Attending every visit. You know, the initial problem with
    her having the boys removed was the fact that she fell asleep and
    couldn’t, you know, take care of them, you know, couldn’t keep
    them safe. She continues to fall asleep. She misses visits because
    she can’t get up in time. She does not keep appointments. She
    doesn’t keep child and family team meetings because she doesn’t
    write them down or she forgets or I don’t know. They don’t
    happen. She’s just not responsible enough to take care of them.
    
    Id. at 132-33.
    Staff also testified as follows that the children had made
    significant developmental strides in foster care:
    [Upon removal, R.B.] didn’t walk and he didn’t talk. He
    grunted, but [made] very little communication whatsoever. And
    [R.B.], you know, coming out of the hospital was just, you know,
    very – he was sick. I mean, he was lethargic . . . . He was tired.
    But since then they really developed personalities. [M.B.]
    learned to walk, is speaking better.
    [M.B.] is not to the level where he needs to be, but has improved
    greatly. [R.B.] couldn’t even crawl. It mean, he – it was
    probably nine months ago he wasn’t even – he was doing arm
    crawls and that was it. He’s now walking and running and, you
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 11 of 24
    know, talking and just – you know, they’re happy. They’re
    outgoing. They’re growing rapidly. At the -- you know, at one
    of the team meetings the report on the doctor’s visit, you know, it
    was great news to hear that [R.B.] would grow out of any of the
    issues that he’s -- you know, was born with. And they’re meeting
    more and more of their milestones. So they’re catching up,
    especially [R.B.] catching up with his age level and [M.B.] with
    his developmental level.
    
    Id. at. 135.
    Staff testified that her recommendation was that the “boys would be
    best suited where they are,” and that adoption was in their best interest. 
    Id. at 136.
    [18]   Former family case manager Stephanie Gilmour testified that she served as case
    manager for M.B. and R.B. from August 2016 to March 2017. She testified that
    Mother was not “consistent with participation” in parent aide services,
    individual counseling or therapy sessions, and supervised visitation; that
    Mother failed to do what was necessary for reunification; and that adoption
    was in the children’s best interest. 
    Id. at 145.
    [19]   Mother testified that she had a good relationship with R.B. and M.B. and
    acknowledged the following: (1) that she had not obtained her driver’s license;
    (2) that she was “probably not up to date completely” regarding R.B.’s medical
    issues; (3) that she had failed to regularly comply with or to attend supervised
    visitations, meetings with her parent aide, and individual counseling; and (4)
    that she had recurring issues with punctuality, oversleeping, missing
    appointments, and unreliable transportation. She also testified that she “could
    [have] do[ne] more” to effect reunification with R.B. and M.B. 
    Id. at 121.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 12 of 24
    [20]   On June 9, 2017, the trial court entered orders, containing extensive findings,
    for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental relationship with M.B. and
    R.B. She now appeals.
    Analysis
    [21]   Mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the termination of
    her parental rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
    Constitution protects the traditional right of parents to establish a home and
    raise their children. In re I.A., 
    934 N.E.2d 1127
    , 1132 (Ind. 2010). “A parent’s
    interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children is ‘perhaps the
    oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.’” 
    Id. (quoting Troxel
    v. Granville, 
    530 U.S. 57
    , 65, 
    120 S. Ct. 2054
    (2000)). “Indeed the parent-child relationship is
    ‘one of the most valued relationships in our culture.’” 
    Id. (quoting Neal
    v.
    DeKalb County Div. of Family & Children, 
    796 N.E.2d 280
    , 285 (Ind. 2003)). We
    recognize that parental interests are not absolute and must be subordinated to
    the child’s interests when determining the proper disposition of a petition to
    terminate parental rights. 
    Id. Thus, “‘[p]arental
    rights may be terminated when
    the parents are unable or unwilling to meet their parental responsibilities.’” 
    Id. (quoting In
    re D.D., 
    804 N.E.2d 258
    , 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied).
    Courts need not wait until a child is irreversibly influenced by a deficient
    lifestyle such that his or her physical, mental, and social growth is permanently
    impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship. Castro v. State Office
    of Family & Children, 
    842 N.E.2d 367
    , 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
    “Rather, when the evidence shows that the emotional and physical
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 13 of 24
    development of a child in need of services is threatened, termination of the
    parent-child relationship is appropriate.” 
    Id. [22] When
    reviewing the termination of parental rights, we do not reweigh the
    evidence or judge witness credibility. 
    I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1132
    . We consider
    only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most favorable to the
    judgment. 
    Id. We must
    also give “due regard” to the trial court’s unique
    opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 
    Id. (quoting In
    d. Trial
    Rule 52(A)). Here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions
    thereon in granting DCS’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights, as
    required by Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-8(c). See In re N.G., 
    61 N.E.3d 1263
    ,
    1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). When reviewing findings of fact and conclusions
    thereon entered in a case involving a termination of parental rights, we apply a
    two-tiered standard of review. First, we determine whether the evidence
    supports the findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support
    the judgment. 
    I.A., 934 N.E.2d at 1132
    . We will set aside the trial court’s
    judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. 
    Id. A judgment
    is clearly erroneous if
    the findings do not support the trial court’s conclusions or the conclusions do
    not support the judgment. 
    Id. [23] Indiana
    Code Section 31-35-2-8(a) provides that, “if the court finds that the
    allegations in a petition described in [Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4] are true,
    the court shall terminate the parent-child relationship.” Indiana Code Section
    31-35-2-4(b)(2) provides that a petition to terminate a parent-child relationship
    involving a child in need of services must allege, in part:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 14 of 24
    (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.
    DCS must establish these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Egly v.
    Blackford County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 
    592 N.E.2d 1232
    , 1234 (Ind. 1992).
    [24]   Here, the trial court found that continuation of the parent-child relationships
    posed a threat to M.B. and R.B. Mother disputes that finding.3 When
    considering whether there is sufficient evidence to support such a finding, trial
    3
    Because Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, DCS needed to prove only
    one of the requirements of subsection (B). We conclude there is sufficient evidence that continuation of the
    parent-child relationship posed a threat to M.B. and R.B.’s well-being and need not consider whether there is
    a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal from Mother’s care would not
    be remedied. See In re B.J., 
    879 N.E.2d 7
    , 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018        Page 15 of 24
    courts must “consider a parent’s habitual pattern of conduct to determine
    whether there is a substantial probability of future neglect or deprivation.”
    Bester v. Lake Cty. Office of Family & Children, 
    839 N.E.2d 143
    , 152 (Ind. 2005).
    “At the same time, however, a trial court should judge a parent’s fitness to care
    for his [or her] child as of the time of the termination proceeding, taking into
    consideration evidence of changed conditions.” 
    Id. [25] The
    trial court made extensive findings regarding Mother’s inconsistency, lack
    of engagement, and unwillingness and/or inability to comply with DCS’s case
    plan, including service providers’ treatment plans regarding supervised visits,
    individual counseling, therapy sessions, and work with a parent aide, all of
    which were intended to aid her reunification efforts:
    17. Mother and Father were to participate in recommended
    services by the Department.
    *****
    33. Mother was offered the opportunity to participate in parent
    aide services, individual therapy, and visitations.
    34. Mother admits that she has not regularly met with her Parent
    Aide and is unable to remember the last time that she met with
    her Parent Aide.
    35. Cathy Speedy of Southern Hills Counseling Center sent
    Mother a letter on February 22, 2017, explaining that because of
    her missed visits in order to continue with Parent Aide services
    Mother needed to attend a one (1) time group session.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 16 of 24
    36. Mother admits to receiving such letter, however has not
    attended the required group session.
    37. Mother had missed ten (10) parent aide sessions. Specifically,
    Mother cancelled six (6) sessions and no showed four (4)
    sessions.
    38. Mother has not made progress towards any of the goals set
    out for her.
    39. Kelly VanMeter is the mother’s individual therapist at
    Southern Hills Counseling center.
    40. Since August 2016, Mother has had eleven (11) scheduled
    individual therapy sessions, however she has only completed five
    (5) sessions with the most recent occurring on January 4, 2017.
    41. Mother was not on time for all five (5) therapy sessions she
    attended.
    42. Mother has not made any progress with her individual
    therapy goals.
    43. Mother admits that it is important to have counseling.
    However she missed counseling for various reasons.
    44. Mother missed visitation for reasons such as “I missed the
    date and time” or “I didn’t have a ride there.”
    45. Bethany Glazebrook supervised Mother’s parenting time
    until December 2016.
    46. Mother made progress when her parenting time was
    supervised from July 2015-July 2016. However Mother missed
    visits due to oversleeping and transportation issues.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 17 of 24
    47. Mother was occasionally not prepared for the visit due to
    being asleep when [Glazebrook] arrived at the home.
    48. During visitations, one child would remain on her lap and
    Mother would care for the other child.
    49. Mother was never able to interact with both children at the
    same time.
    50. Heather Rockman-Boatman of Ireland Home Based Services
    testified that since December 2016, she has been the supervisor of
    parenting time.
    51. Mother has been inconsistent in her visitation, as well as
    regularly ended visits early.
    52. Heather Rockman-Boatman then began supervising parenting
    time in December 2016.
    53. From December 2016 to March 2016, Mother was offered
    forty-one (41) visits and attended eighteen (18) visits.
    54. Mother has a problem of sleeping through appointments and
    visits, as well as, is frequently late to scheduled appointments and
    visits.
    55. Mother admits that she could have done more to reunify with
    [R.B. and M.B].
    App. Vol. II pp. 9-11. The trial court also entered findings regarding Mother’s
    unreliability, lack of a support system, and inability to meet either the children’s
    basic needs or R.B.’s unique medical needs as follows:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 18 of 24
    56. Mother lacks transportation, appropriate housing, and
    consistent employment.
    57. Mother, per her own admission, relies on friends for
    transportation and believes it’s “probably not a good idea to get a
    license right now” due to her finances.
    58. Mother’s current home has had some work completed to
    make the home more appropriate for [the children]. However, at
    this time, and without certain items, the home is still not
    appropriate for children.
    59. Mother acknowledges that six (6) months is her most
    consistent period of employment.
    60. Mother acknowledges that DCS became involved in this
    matter when [M.B.] had severe diaper rash. [R.B.] sustained
    injuries in Mother’s care while she was sleeping nearby.
    61. Ann Staff, CASA, reports concerns about [the] length of time
    it took Mother to take [M.B.] and [R.B.] to the hospital when
    they were removed from the home.
    62. [R.B.] has significant medical history due to being born
    premature and meets with different medical specialists.
    63. Mother is not up to date on the current medical status of
    [R.B.].
    64. Mother, at points in the case, made positive progress towards
    reunification. However, Mother moved back down to supervised
    visitations when [R.B.] returned from visits to Foster Care with
    unexplained bruises and other injuries.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 19 of 24
    65. Following a return to supervised visitations, the bruises
    ceased.
    66. When [M.B.] and [R.B.] were placed in his home, [R.B.] had
    bruises and marks on him, was very thin, and looked
    malnourished.
    67. When both children were placed in the home, they had severe
    diaper rash and scabies.
    68. Paul McMinn acknowledged that [M.B.] and [R.B.] initially
    returned from visitations smelling of cigarette smoke and at one
    point brought bed bugs into his home.
    69. [R.B.] is unable to be around cigarette smoke due to lung
    issues.
    70. Mother admits that she smokes cigarettes, smoked cigarettes
    in the home, and knew that she needed to go outside to smoke
    cigarettes due to medical conditions of [R.B.].
    71. Paul McMinn notes that from when [M.B.] and [R.B.] were
    placed in his care to when they left his care for new Foster
    placement, they were “completely different kids.”
    72. Based on parents’ lack of progress and consistency, Former
    FCM, Stephanie Gilmour, as well as CASA, Ann Staff, testified
    that testified that adoption and termination of parental rights was
    in [M.B. and R.B.’s] best interests.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 20 of 24
    
    Id. at 11-12.
    We cannot say the foregoing findings, which reflect the trial
    court’s weighing of the evidence and judging of witness credibility, are clearly
    erroneous.
    [26]   This case is made especially difficult because Mother’s family case managers
    and service providers recognized her love for the children and actively worked
    to aid her efforts to reunite with M.B. and R.B. Sadly, they had a complacent
    partner in Mother, who failed to rise to the occasion despite receiving
    significant support. The children were removed from Mother’s care because of
    allegations of physical abuse and neglect. The record reflects that Mother failed
    to appreciate the extent of her children’s needs—especially R.B.’s—as well as
    the adverse impact of her chronic inconsistency and her inability to make
    necessary changes for their wellbeing.
    [27]   Family Case Manager Blaize testified that when she asked Mother about the
    children’s medical issues, she responded that they had none. The record is clear
    that, at least at the outset of the CHINS period, M.B. required speech therapy;
    and R.B. required treatment from a host of medical specialists. Specifically, as
    to R.B.’s breathing problems, several witnesses testified that Mother continued
    to smoke during the CHINS period, despite warnings that he could simply not
    withstand it.
    [28]   Mother’s decision to forgo obtaining a driver’s license, which was vital to
    ensuring R.B.’s routine access to medical specialists as well as to emergency
    care, is troubling and reinforces CASA Staff’s testimony that Mother is neither
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 21 of 24
    “responsible,” conscientious, nor “capable” of appropriately parenting M.B.
    and R.B. 
    Id. at 132-33.
    Mother missed so many sessions with her individual
    therapist and parent aide that those service providers discharged her. Foster
    parent Minn testified that Mother had “just quit” taking R.B. to his
    appointments with his medical providers. 
    Id. at 97.
    Her shoddy record of
    appointment no-shows and cancellations with her parenting aide, individual
    therapist, and even for supervised visits—at a time when she was pursuing
    reunification and receiving peak-level support—does not inspire confidence in
    her ability to self-govern had reunification occurred. Lastly, various witnesses
    testified to the remarkable turnaround made by each child once he was in a
    stable, nurturing environment with access to necessary services, treatment, and
    support.
    [29]   Given the children’s youthful ages and R.B.’s medical challenges, it was
    incumbent upon Mother to demonstrate her desire, ability, and noted progress
    toward improving her attentiveness and supervision, management of R.B.’s
    medical appointments, and her ability to meet the children’s basic needs so that
    they could achieve developmental milestones in her care as they did under the
    Minns’s care. In light of the foregoing, we agree with the trial court that
    allowing continuation of Mother’s parent-child relationships with M.B. and
    R.B. poses a threat to their wellbeing. The trial court’s findings on this issue
    were not clearly erroneous.
    [30]   Mother also contends that termination is not in M.B. and R.B.’s best interests.
    When considering whether there is sufficient evidence that termination of
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 22 of 24
    parental rights is in a child’s best interests, we consider the totality of the
    evidence and look beyond the factors identified by DCS. In re J.C., 
    994 N.E.2d 278
    , 289-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The interests of the parents must be
    subordinated to the needs of the child. 
    Id. at 290.
    Recommendations of DCS
    caseworkers and court-appointed special advocates, combined with evidence
    that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child, are
    sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in a
    child’s best interests. 
    Id. Children have
    a paramount need for permanency,
    which is a central consideration in evaluating a child’s best interests. In re E.M.,
    
    4 N.E.3d 636
    , 647-48 (Ind. 2014).
    [31]   The record reveals throughout that Mother failed to demonstrate the level of
    commitment and consistency necessary to assure DCS and service providers
    that she could meet M.B. and R.B.’s unique needs. Various witnesses testified
    that she simply lacked the will, maturity, and discipline to engage in services
    intended to improve her parenting, organizational, and coping skills. Although
    she made limited progress, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that
    Mother failed to meet virtually all goals established for under DCS’s case plan.
    Both the children’s CASA and Family Case Manager recommended
    termination of Mother’s parental rights and adoption in their foster placement.
    Given Mother’s minimal progress and the genuine risk of harm to the
    children—particularly R.B.—from her complacency, it is unclear how long
    M.B. and R.B. would have to wait for those conditions to improve, if at all.
    We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 23 of 24
    that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in M.B. and R.B.’s best
    interests.
    Conclusion
    [32]   There is sufficient evidence to sustain the termination of Mother’s parental
    relationship with M.B. and R.B. We affirm.
    Affirmed.
    Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1707-JT-1577 | February 16, 2018   Page 24 of 24