In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of I.K. and L.K. (Minor Children), and K.F. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Mar 14 2017, 8:17 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Marianne Woolbert Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Robert J. Henke
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Termination of the Parent- March 14, 2017
Child Relationship of I.K. and Court of Appeals Case No.
L.K. (Minor Children), 48A02-1607-JT-1628
and K.F. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
(Mother),
The Honorable G. George Pancol,
Appellant-Respondent, Judge
v. Trial Court Cause Nos.
48C02-1511-JT-67
48C02-1511-JT-68
The Indiana Department of
Child Services,
Appellee-Petitioner.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 1 of 20
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Respondent K.F. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to I.K. and L.K. (collectively, “the Children”).
She raises the following restated issue on appeal: whether the Appellee-
Petitioner the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) presented
sufficient evidence to support termination of her parental rights to the Children.
Specifically, Mother contends that DCS did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the conditions that resulted in the Children’s removal could
not be remedied within a reasonable amount of time, (2) continuation of the
parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well-being of the Children, and
(3) termination was in the Children’s best interests. Concluding that the
evidence is sufficient to support the termination order, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother is the biological parent of I.K., who was born on December 25, 2008,
and L.K., who was born on June 19, 2012.1 On November 4, 2013, DCS filed
petitions alleging the Children to be children in need of services (“CHINS”) due
to a physical altercation between Mother and the Children’s father (collectively
1
The biological father’s rights were also terminated, but he does not participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 2 of 20
“the Parents”).2 DCS removed the Children from the home and care of the
Parents and placed the Children with the parental grandmother. On January 8,
2014, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing and issued its dispositional
decree ordering Mother to participate in various services, including supervised
visitation, individual counseling, and homebased case work and therapy. On
April 20, 2014, the juvenile court modified the dispositional decree and
authorized the placement of the Children in foster care.
[3] During the November 12, 2014, permanency hearing, the juvenile court learned
that Mother had not been compliant with the case plan and had tested positive
for THC on September 23, 2014. At the November 20, 2014 permanency
hearing, the juvenile court changed the Children’s permanency plan to
termination of parental rights with a concurrent plan of adoption.
[4] On April 5 and 26, 2016, the juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing on DCS’
termination petitions. At the hearing, DCS’ family case manager (“FCM”)
Samantha Allbee and Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) Jessica
Barker testified that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the
Children. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the juvenile court entered
an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children on June 7, 2016.
In doing so, the juvenile court made the following pertinent specific findings: 3
2
DCS has an extensive history with the family.
3
While this order applies to I.K., the trial court issues a nearly identical order relative to L.K.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 3 of 20
3.) On 11/1/13, the child’s mother and father engaged in an
episode of domestic violence against each other which resulted in
the father going to the hospital from the encounter and also being
arrested for charges of domestic battery against the mother. The
child’s parents have a significant history of domestic violence
against each other, with multiple arrests for battery charges and
invasion of privacy charges on either parent in which they have
alternated the roles of assailant and victim. These incidents have
taken place throughout the child’s life and placed the child’s
safety and well-being at risk, as well as contributing to a lengthy
and uninterrupted instability as the hallmark of the child’s life.
4.) The child’s father and mother have also engaged in substance
abuse, further jeopardizing the child’s well-being and
contributing to the previously noted instability. The mother also
has multiple mental health diagnoses that have gone untreated,
or for which the mother has failed to obtain or maintain adequate
treatment, counseling, and medication, further causing instability
and chaos in the child's life.
5.) A Child In Need of Services (“CHINS”) Petition was filed
under cause number 48C02-13 l l-JC-287 in November of 2013,
due to the domestic violence prevalent between the child’s
parents, and the child was detained along with the child’s
sibling.4
6.) On 11/20/13, the child’s parents admitted the allegations of
the CHINS petition and the status of the child as a CHINS and
the matter was set for a disposition and parental participation
petition hearing. The child and sibling remained removed from
the home and care of the parents.
4
CHINS petition filed under cause number 48C02-1311-JC-288.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 4 of 20
7.) At the disposition and parental participation petition hearing
conducted on 1/8/14, the parents were ordered to participate in
reunification efforts, including obeying the law, participating in
individual counseling, abstaining from the use or possession of
illegal drugs, maintaining routine contact with DCS, keeping all
appointments with DCS or engaged service providers, notifying
DCS of any changes in contact information, participating in
home-based therapy, obtaining and maintaining housing and
source of support or income sufficient for the safe and
appropriate upbringing of the child, and participating in visitation
with the child and sibling as established by the Department.
8.) The child’s mother has been an infrequent full-time caregiver
for the child or child’s sibling, both during and preceding the
initiation of the CHINS proceedings, and has never provided
essential and necessary stability for the child as a result. The child
became the ward of a guardianship held by the child’s paternal
grandmother at the age of one-year-old, which remained in place
at the time the CHINS proceedings were initiated. Custody for
the child’s sibling was granted to the child’s father in October of
2013, when the child was approximately 16 months old. Neither
child has returned to either parent[’s] care or control since the
original removal in November of 2015.
9.) The child’s mother has held multiple short term residences
both during and preceding the initiation of CHINS proceedings,
and has not been able to maintain her own stable home for any
appreciable amount of time, nor provide the same for either child
in these same time periods.
The child’s mother has lived in approximately thirteen different
residences during this child’s lifetime (beginning in 2009), and at
least seven different residences since the CHINS proceedings
were initiated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 5 of 20
10.) The mother has been evicted on multiple occasions by
landlords, as reflected in multiple small claims case chronologies
demonstrating the same which were admitted as exhibits by DCS
in the termination trial proceedings, and including in 2013 and
2014. Mother testified that she lost her most recent house in
May of 2015 due to being unable to maintain payments for the
housing. On the last day of trial, mother represented to the Court
that she had acquired a new apartment and had been living there
for approximately 2½ months in the Castleton area of
Indianapolis. However, upon cross examination of a subsequent
witness put forth by the mother, her father’s current wife, it was
revealed that it is actually that person, and not the mother, who
is providing the funding for mother’s current housing, meaning
that on the last date of the trial proceedings, the mother remains
unable to provide housing for herself, let alone either of her 2
children.
11.) Mother’s misrepresentation to the Court, that she is
supplying her own housing, also represents a threat to the
children’s well-being, as it demonstrates that she is willing to
withhold true and accurate information from the Court charged
with seeing to the children’s best interests and in ensuring their
safety and well-being, in order to further her own perceived self-
interests.
12.) The child’s mother has been unable to maintain steady and
stable employment or otherwise secure funds that would enable
her to fulfill her parental responsibilities to the child. She has
periodically worked with her current boyfriend’s company,
which mirrors the dependent relationships she has previously
maintained with the child’s father and other boyfriends, and
which has left her without means and without housing, including
the home she lost in May of 2015. Mother was unemployed at
the time she completed a psychological evaluation in February of
2016, and other than the temporary and undocumented
employment with her current boyfriend, mother’s most recent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 6 of 20
employment was as an exotic dancer. Her sporadic and unstable
employment history has been and remains inadequate to provide
for the basic necessities of her children.
13.) Mother testified during the trial proceedings that she has
“poor relationship habits” with men, with which assessment the
Court agrees. Mother has contributed to poor relationships
during the child’s lifetime, as demonstrated by the multiple
criminal case chronologies involving herself and the child’s father
which were submitted by DCS as exhibits in these proceedings.
The mother and father have repeatedly engaged in incidents of
domestic violence or violations of protective orders against each
other, leading to multiple arrests for domestic violence or
invasion of privacy, and causing each other to be temporarily
incarcerated as a result, throwing the family household into
chaos and chronic instability. The incident which caused the
CHINS proceedings for these children in November of 2013, and
which was acknowledged by both parents as the basis for the
CHINS adjudication on 11/20/13, is one such example. The
Court finds that neither parent has taken the necessary steps to
address this repeating pattern and resolve the inherent[ly]
unstable lives imposed by this conduct upon their children.
Rather, the mother and father simply have failed to attend
subsequent hearings in the various criminal matters when they
have held the status of “victim,” leading to routine dismissals of
the criminal actions by the State of Indiana because the main
witness in the case refuses to participate in the prosecution. The
end result of this pattern has been that no remedy for this seminal
basis for DCS and Court intervention has been achieved, and the
children have lived a life of instability and inherent danger,
unless residing with someone other than the parents themselves.
14.) The child’s mother has multiple diagnoses for mental health
disorders and conditions, including depression, [post-traumatic]
stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts and ideations, as set forth in
the psychological evaluation completed by Dr. Sara Szerlong
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 7 of 20
which was submitted as an exhibit in these proceedings. Mother
has continued to manifest unhealthy and unstable conduct and
ideations late in the CHINS and termination proceedings that
have already been in progress and subject to court-ordered
services since November of 2013, a period of [twenty-nine]
months as of the dates of the termination trial.
Dr. Szerlong’s testimony and the related exhibit demonstrate that
the child’s mother does not have a positive coping strategy in
place to deal with her mental health issues as of yet.
Additionally, the mother will require further, extended, and
lengthy treatment and therapy, including long term use of
medications, to achieve stability to the point where a
determination of whether she can even then effectively fulfill her
parental obligations can be made. The mother is not at this point,
again, twenty-nine (29) months into this case. As of the date of
trial, these conditions which are a significant part of the child’s
CHINS conditions and reasons for the continued removal of the
child, have not been remedied based on this testimony and the
supporting exhibit.
15.) Mother has attempted to argue that her mental health
conditions were delayed in being diagnosed, and has attempted
to lay blame for the same upon the DCS efforts in the case.
However, the child’s mother freely admitted during trial, and in
agreement with the evidence presented by DCS in its case, that
she used and abused illegal drugs throughout the entire first year
of the CHINS case itself. Further, the child’s mother unilaterally
abandoned participation in service provision efforts during the
CHINS proceedings and left the state for a significant period of
time. Additionally, the child’s mother has failed to comply with
the basic dispositional and parental participation orders to keep
in contact with DCS and notify that agency of her addresses and
general whereabouts at multiple times during the pendency of the
CHINS and termination proceedings, including the last six
months leading up to the termination trial sessions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 8 of 20
16.) The record of non-compliance, criminal and substance abuse
conduct, and lack of contact compiled by the mother during the
CHINS and termination proceedings makes clear that any delays
in diagnosis of her mental health conditions, as well as making
progress in any other reunification service, lies at her own feet.
Though the Department is required to provide services under
most circumstances to attempt to remedy a child’s CHINS
condition and reunify children with their parents, it legally and
appropriately remains the parent’s obligation to take whatever
necessary steps to successfully resolve the conditions leading to
continued removal. Mother’s extensive delays and failures to
participate, while using drugs, leaving the jurisdiction, and
refusing to communicate with the Department, do not meet that
definition and are not chargeable to the Department, or a good
reason to delay permanency for the children at the center of these
matters.
17.) The child’s mother has failed to advance in her parenting
skills to sufficiently remedy the child’s CHINS condition and
reunify with the child. She has not demonstrated the use of
parenting skills taught in her home-based or individual therapies
or during visitation sessions. She has missed multiple visitation
sessions without excuse, including multiple sessions where she
failed to appear without a call or attempt at explanation or re-
scheduling, including a session as late as March of 2016, during
which the mother chose to attend another person’s birthday party
instead of going to visit with her children. Notable also for its
unfortunate but predictable impact on the child in these
proceedings, the mother failed to acknowledge the child’s
birthday, which also happens to fall on Christmas Day, in 2015,
the child’s most recent birthday. Additionally notable is the
mother’s failure to mention this oversight of basic parenting to
witnesses who she called to testify on her behalf, including the
same witness who is currently providing for mother’s housing,
who referred to her as a “good mother,” but who was oblivious
to mother’s failure in this regard prior to cross examination.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 9 of 20
****
19.) DCS has identified the alternative permanency plan for the
children as adoption by their current foster family. The Court
finds this plan as acceptable, appropriate, and conducive to
positive futures for both children.
20.) During the pendency of the CHINS and termination
proceedings, the elder child has been in individual therapy with
his own therapist to attempt to work through the issues thrust
upon him by the conduct of his parents and their inability or lack
of follow-through in services to reunify with him. The child now
manifests conduct making clear that he does not wish to return to
the unstable life his parents did and will continue to subject him
to. This includes hostility and physical resistance towards and
against the mother during visitations, anxiety prior to visitation
sessions, and acting out following visitation sessions, including at
school. When the child is not demonstrating anger or hostility, he
manifests indifference to the mother. There is a lack of a bond
between the child and the mother. There is no bond between the
children and their father.
21.) The younger child of the sibling set does not demonstrate the
same animosity towards the mother as the elder child does, due
to the differences in age and context for the younger child. She
was less than 18 months old when both children were removed
from the parents’ care, and has now spent the last 29 months in
someone else’s home, the vast majority of that with the current
pre-adoptive foster parents. The child simply and fortunately
does not have the same memory of the instability and chaos as
the elder child, and clearly associates her normal and positive
existence as a family member of the foster family. Both children
have strong and loving familial bonds with the foster parents.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 10 of 20
22.) The child’s CASA and the DCS family case manager both
testified that it would be in the children’s best interests to have
the parent-child relationship of both children with both parents
terminated and for them both to be adopted. The Court now
adopts those opinions as its own as a finding of fact for purposes
of these proceedings.
23.) It is also in the best interests of both children not to be
separated from each other. Neither child has been returned to the
care of either parent since the original removal in November of
2013. As the elder child increasingly makes clear by his conduct
and during his maturation, he wants no part of a return to either
biological parents’ home. His greater experience with the parents’
failures in raising both children is compelling evidence of what is
in the children’s best interests, specifically, being made available
for adoption.
24.) The above recitation of evidence also demonstrates that
there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that led to the
detention or continued removal of the children will not be
remedied, or that continuation of the parent-child relationship is
a threat to the well-being of both children. Each paragraph,
individually and in aggregate, makes that showing and is now so
found.
25.) In summary, the children have been provided a lengthy
period of unsafe and unstable existence at the hands of the two
parents. Efforts were made and services offered during
approximately 29 months since removal which have failed to
resolve these issues on the part of the parents. During this
expanse of time of nearly two and a half years, the children have
respectively grown from a four year old to a seven year old, and
from a 1½ year old to an almost four year old. They have now
been provided serious and substantive parenting by a foster
family that has devoted its own time, lives, and resources to
them, representing a welcome and needed change to what had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 11 of 20
taken place before. The children have overcome obstacles and
issues while in this new kind of care and stability and now clearly
associate themselves as members of the foster family. Disrupting
their newly found stability, love, and nurturing in favor of further
and extensive time waiting on either parent to gain stability, first
for themselves, and then however much later, for the children,
would be its own form of child abuse, and an unnecessary
gamble and experiment on the backs of these two children. The
elements of the termination petition have been met and the
parent-child relationship should now be terminated.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 50-67.
[5] Children have been in the same pre-adoptive home since April 2, 2014. Based
upon the testimony of the CASA for I.K. and L.K., the Children are thriving in
their current home. “They identify their foster home as their home.” Tr. p. 64.
“[T]hey are very affectionate with their foster parents . . . [and] foster sisters.”
Id. “[T]hey are very comfortable in their home environment.” Id.
Discussion and Decision
[6] This court has long had a highly deferential standard of review in cases
concerning the termination of parental rights. In re K.S., 750 N.E.2d 832, 836
(Ind. Ct. App. 2001). When reviewing a termination of parental rights case, we
will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that are most
favorable to the judgment. In re D.D., 804 N.E.2d 258, 265 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004), trans. denied. Thus, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Id. We will only set aside the court judgment
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 12 of 20
terminating a parent-child relationship if it is clearly erroneous. In re B.J., 879
N.E.2d 7, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[7] The traditional right of a parent to establish a home and raise her children is
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Bester v. Lake Cnty. Office of Family and Children, 839 N.E.2d 143, 145 (Ind. 2005).
Furthermore, we acknowledge that the parent-child relationship is “one of the
most valued relationships of our culture.” Id. However, parental rights are not
absolute and the law allows for the termination of such rights when a parent is
unable or unwilling to meet her responsibilities as a parent. In re T.F., 743
N.E.2d 766, 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans denied. The purpose of terminating
parental rights is to protect the child, not to punish the parent. Id. The juvenile
court may terminate the parental rights if the child’s emotional and physical
development is threatened. Id. The juvenile court need not wait until the child
has suffered from irreversible harm. Id.
[8] Before an involuntary termination of parental rights may occur, DCS is
required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
(A) one (1) of the following exists:
(i) the child has been removed from the parent for at least
six (6) months under a dispositional decree;
(ii) a court has entered a finding under IC 31-34-21-5.6 that
reasonable efforts for family preservation or reunification
are not required, including a description of the court’s
finding, the date of the finding, and the manner in which
the finding was made; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 13 of 20
(iii) the child has been removed from the parent and has
been under the supervision of a county office of family and
children or probation department for at least fifteen (15)
months of the most recent twenty-two (22) months,
beginning with the date the child is removed from the
home as a result of the child being alleged to be a child in
need of services or a delinquent child;
(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) termination is in the best interests of the child; and
(D) there is a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of the
child.
Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2). DCS’s burden of proof for establishing these
allegations in a termination case is one of “clear and convincing evidence.” In
re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. 2009).
[9] Here, Mother only challenges three of the juvenile court’s findings of fact.
Where the juvenile court’s unchallenged findings clearly and convincingly
support its ultimate decision to terminate parental rights, we find no error. T.B.
v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 971 N.E.2d 104, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans.
denied. As for the challenged findings, Mother is essentially asking us to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 14 of 20
reweigh the evidence as it pertains to Findings 3, 16, and 17, which we will not
do. In re N.G., 51 N.E.3d 1167, 1170 (Ind. 2016).
[10] Finding 3 discusses the domestic violence incident that occurred with the
Parents and the “lengthy and uninterrupted instability” that the Children had
dealt with. Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 51. Mother argues that this finding
contradicts Finding 8 which states that Mother has been an infrequent caregiver
for the Children both before and during the CHINS proceedings. The record
supports each of these findings. The Children were removed initially due to
instability and violence and they have not been returned to Mother’s care due to
continued instability on Mother’s part.
[11] Finding 16 addresses Mother’s non-compliance throughout the course of the
CHINS and termination proceedings. Mother does not specifically challenge
the substance of Finding 16, she merely argues that the juvenile court should
have given more weight to the fact that some of her drug screens were negative.
The juvenile court is free to judge and weigh the evidence as it sees fit. Bergman
v. Knox Cnty. OFC, 750 N.E.2d 809, 811-12 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The record
supports the juvenile court’s Finding 16; therefore, we find no error.
[12] Finding 17 discusses Mother’s failure to advance her parenting skills sufficiently
to reunite with the Children. Mother argues that DCS failed to present any
testimony that the Children were harmed during her unsupervised visits with
them. While Mother did progress to the point where she was allowed to have
unsupervised visits with the Children, the record indicates that Mother’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 15 of 20
parenting skills were still lacking in many areas. The record shows that
Mother’s visits eventually regressed back to pop-ins and then therapeutically
supervised visits. At the time of the termination hearing, there was also
evidence from the Children’s therapist that the visits were becoming detrimental
to the Children. There was also testimony from the therapist that she was
recommending termination due to a lack of bond between the Children and
Mother. Consequently, we conclude that Finding 17 was supported also by
evidence in the record.
[13] Mother also argues that DCS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the conditions that resulted in the Children being removed could not be
remedied, the continuation of the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the
Children’s well-being, and termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the
Children’s best interests.
I. Conditions Resulting in Removal Not Likely to
Be Remedied
[14] “We begin by noting that a trial court 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.” J.K.C. v. Fountain Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 470 N.E.2d 88, 93
(Ind. Ct. App. 1984). “When the evidence shows that the emotional and
physical development of a child in need of services is threatened, termination of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 16 of 20
the parent-child relationship is appropriate.” In re L.S., 717 N.E.2d 204, 208
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
[15] Here, the juvenile court made numerous thoughtful findings regarding Mother’s
instability, lack of consistent housing and employment, lack of contact,
substance abuse, and criminal history notwithstanding the multitude of services
that were designated to address her issues throughout the underlying CHINS
and instant termination proceedings. Specifically, the record reveals that
Mother’s home-based case management was unsuccessfully closed due to her
failure to attend, she was unemployed several times throughout the case and
had been unemployed since December 2015, she lived in at least ten different
residences during the underlying CHINS case, and failed to inform the DCS
manager where she was residing. Despite the extensive services provided to
Mother, the juvenile court determined, at the time of the termination hearing,
that Mother was incapable of providing the Children with a safe and stable
home environment. Based upon the ample evidence regarding Mother’s non-
compliance with the court-ordered services and her inability to maintain stable
employment and housing, we conclude that Mother has not sustained her
burden to show that the juvenile court’s determination in this regard was clearly
erroneous.
II. Continuation of the Parent Child Relationship
Posed a Threat to the Children’s Well-being
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 17 of 20
[16] Next we address Mother’s claim that DCS failed to show by clear and
convincing evidence that the continuation of the parent-child relationship
would be detrimental to the Children. Under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-
4(b)(2)(B), DCS need only prove that “[t]here is a reasonable probability that
the conditions that resulted in the child[ren’s] removal or the reasons for the
placement outside the home of the parents will not be remedied,” that “[t]here
is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship
poses a threat to the well-being of the child,” or that the children have been
adjudicated as CHINS on two separate occasions. As discussed above, DCS
presented ample evidence for the juvenile court to conclude that there was a
reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the Children’s
removal would not be remedied. Because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-
4(b)(2(B) is written in the disjunctive and in light of our conclusion relating to
the probability that the conditions leading to removal would not be remedied,
we need not consider Mother’s claim as to whether the evidence is sufficient to
prove that the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the Children’s well-
being.
III. The Children’s Best Interests
[17] Finally, we address Mother’s claim that DCS failed to prove that termination of
her parental rights was in the Children’s best interests. When reviewing such
claims, we are mindful of the fact that the juvenile court is required to look
beyond the factors identified by DCS and consider the totality of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 18 of 20
circumstances. McBride v. Monroe Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 798 N.E.2d
185, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In doing so, this court must subordinate the
interest of the parent to those of the children involved. Id.
[18] In addressing whether continuation of the parent-child relationship is in the
children’s best interests, we note that both the FCM and the CASA testified that
termination was in the Children’s best interests. Such testimony is sufficient to
support the juvenile court’s conclusion in this regard. See In re A.B., 887 N.E.2d
158, 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). However, additional evidence further supports
the juvenile court’s conclusion. Mother has been unable to maintain stable
housing and employment. The record shows that Mother has lived in
approximately “ten plus” residences during the underlying CHINS case. Tr. p.
77. “A parent’s historical inability to provide adequate housing, stability and
supervision coupled with a current inability to provide the same will support a
finding that continuation of the parent-child relationship is contrary to the
child’s interests.” In re Adoption of D.V.H., 604 N.E.2d 634, 638 (Ind. Ct. App.
1992).
[19] The testimony from service providers established that the Children do not have
a strong bond with Mother and their visits with her are not beneficial for them.
The testimony also established that visits with Mother are actually detrimental
for I.K. because “he is becoming increasingly frustrated about the future . . .
and has made comments such as ‘my mom doesn’t have a home’ . . . and does
not seem to look forward to the visits.” Tr. p. 26. Moreover, according to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 19 of 20
record, I.K. reported to his school that “his increasing behavior” issues are
“because he’s angry with his mom.” Tr. p. 26.
[20] In sum, Mother’s history of instability, as well as her lack of consistent
participation in the provided services, together support the juvenile court’s
decision to terminate her parental rights. We decline her invitation to reweigh
and reassess the evidence related to the challenged findings. Moreover, the
unchallenged findings, alone, are sufficient to support the juvenile court’s
decision. We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not clearly err in
terminating Mother’s parental relationship with I.K. and L.K.
[21] We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1607-JT-1628 | March 14, 2017 Page 20 of 20